Document elcerrito_gov_doc_d8b9c47132

AGENDA BILL Agenda Item No. 6(A) Date: May 19, 2015 To: El Cerrito City Council From: Margaret Development Services Manager Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of a Design Review Application for the Project Proposed for 1715 Elm Street. ACTION REQUESTED Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion adopt a resolution making findings upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the design review application for the project at 1715 Elm Street. BACKGROUND Prior entitlement history for the project: March 19, 2014: Planning Commission – Study Session April 16, 2014: Planning Commission – Public Hearing May 21, 2014: Planning Commission – Public Hearing June 2, 2014: City Council – Public Hearing June 23, 2014: City Council – Public Hearing August 19, 2014: City Council – Public Hearing For all associated documents, including prior staff reports and CEQA documents, please see: http://www.el-cerrito.org/index.aspx?nid=841. The overall project entitlement package was approved by the City Council on August 19, 2014. These entitlements included: Development Agreement, the creation of a Planned Development District including a Zoning Map Amendment and a Use Permit. The project that is the subject of the appeal before the City Council is the final design review of the project, only. This application was the subject of a public hearing before the Design Review Board on January 7, 2015. After review of the staff report, presentation from the applicant, and comments from the public, the Board unanimously approved the project. The staff report, the resolution which incorporates the findings and conditions of approval made by the Board and the Draft Minutes are all included in this report as Attachment 2, 3 and 4. On January 20, 2015, Howdy Goudey and Robin Mitchell filed an appeal of the Design Review Board’s decision. On March 18, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the design review application. After review of the staff report, presentation from the applicant, and comments from the public, the Commission denied the appeal and approved the proposed design ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(A) Page 2 on a vote of four in favor and three in opposition. The staff report, the resolution which incorporates the findings and conditions of approval made by the Commission and the Minutes are all included in this report as Attachment 5, 6 and 7. On March 26, 2015, Howdy Goudey and Robin Mitchell filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision. The complete appeal document is included in this report as Attachment 8. ANALYSIS Context of an Appeal in the El Cerrito Municipal Code As noted above, the City Council approved the underlying project at 1715 Elm on August 19, 2014. The procedure required by the Zoning Code provides for final design review to follow project approval. The Zoning Code contemplates that design review decisions will be made in the context of all (or nearly) all other elements of a proposed project that have already been decided. The design review process therefore asks decision-makers to focus on whether the design meets the City’s requirements and the necessary findings can be made for the project as approved. The applicable provisions of the Code, discussed in more detail below, do not call for design review to be used to reconsider already approved aspects of the project The legal framework for appeals is stated in several sections of the zoning ordinance. Specifically: Pursuant to Section 19.39.040.D, decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk. Pursuant to Section 19.38.070.A, appeals of design review approvals shall be based on design issues that are within the scope of Chapter 19.38 (Design Review) and the purview of the design review unless the appellant asserts that the decision exceeds the authority of the decision-making body in conducting design review. Section 19.38.040 establishes the scope of final design review as the following: The Zoning Administrator or Design Review Board shall approve, conditionally approve or deny, or make recommendations on applications for final aesthetic architectural review based on consideration of the requirements of this Chapter as they apply to design of the structures, landscaping, lighting and other architectural features of an application including: A. Building articulation, facade treatment and architectural details. B. Exterior colors and materials. C. Character defining features and the relation to existing settings. D. Design of fences, walls, and screen plantings, including but not limited to height of those structures, materials, colors, and type. E. Location and type of landscaping including selection and size of plant materials and design of hardscape including landscape lighting. F. The size, location, design, color, number, lighting, and materials of signs. G. Design of the streetscape, including but not limited to landscaping, furniture and materials. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(A) Page 3 Pursuant to 19.39.040 E and F, the authorized hearing body shall review the appeal, the record, and any written correspondence submitted after the appeal has been filed, and shall take one of the following actions: 1. Conduct a public hearing and take action on the appeal; or 2. Remand the matter to the decision-making body or official to cure a deficiency in the record or the proceedings. Staff has noticed this meeting as a public hearing in order to allow the City Council the opportunity to take action on the appeal if the City Council chooses to do so. Pursuant to 19.39.050, when reviewing any decision on appeal, the hearing body shall use the same standards for decision-making required for the original decision. The hearing body may adopt the same decision and findings as were originally approved or different ones. This language establishes that, to approve the proposed design, the City Council must make the same findings as the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board. However, the Council members are free to make a new decision using these findings, based on the information in the record and any written correspondence submitted after the appeal has been filed. The City Council may alternatively grant the appeal and deny the design review or deny the appeal and approve the design review but with additional or modified conditions that the Council concludes are necessary to make the required findings. This style of appeal review is also known as a de novo hearing. If the City Council chooses to take an action at tonight’s meeting, there are two options for the body to consider: 1. It may review the findings made by the Planning Commission, review the new appeal letter submitted by the appellant team, review the analysis provided by staff and affirm the decision of the Commission and approve the application (with or without new or modified conditions); or 2. It may review the findings made by the Planning Commission, review the new appeal letter submitted by the appellant team, review the analysis provided by staff and deny the decision of the Commission and deny the application. Staff Analysis of the Appeal Staff has summarized the items in the appeal that fall within the purview of the item before the City Council tonight in the order that they appear in the appeal letter. As a frame for the analysis, staff first lists the appropriate design review findings/criteria that pertain to the issues under discussion, and then summarizes each issue the appellants note related to that specific finding/criteria. Staff quotes the appellants unless otherwise noted in these sections by the use of parenthesis, and finally offers a response to each of the issues. The first eight pages of the appeal notes many different aspects of the development project at 1715 Elm that fall outside of the scope of final design review purview of the project. No further staff analysis is offered to these components of the appeal. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(A) Page 4 Issue 1: Relevant Section of the El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 19.38.060 stipulates the final design review findings and criteria. The first finding notes that the decision maker may only approve a final design review application if it finds that the application is consistent with the purposes of this Chapter and is consistent with a number of findings. The first finding is A.1. The applicable standards and requirements of this Zoning Ordinance. Appellant Concern The project is not compliant with all the zoning ordinance standards. Staff Response Staff notes that this point is not directly related to the findings required to approve the proposed design but rather asks the City Council to effectively review the design under the zoning that existed prior to the Council’s own approval of the Planned Development for the project site. Staff references this point for the sake of clarity because it is in the main body of the appeal. To explain the issue further, a Planned Development District (PD) is by definition an amendment of the zoning ordinance and map. It is an extraordinary action and in order for a PD to be approved, the deciding body has to find that the project “is demonstratively superior to the development that could occur under the standards applicable to the underlying base district.” Essentially, it is the creation of overlay zoning district on the project site. The approval of the Development Agreement, the Planned Development District and the Use Permit by the City Council on August 19, 2014 acted to finalize the physical location and dimensions of the new building, (including height) the location of the historic structure as well as all other dimensions noted on the site plan, including setbacks. By this action, the project was made consistent with the standards and requirements of the zoning ordinance because the zoning ordinance itself was amended. In this case, final design review is limited to the final architectural review as it applies to aesthetic design of the structures, landscaping, lighting and other architectural features of the project proposed for 1715 Elm Street. Plant palette, hardscape, architectural features, materials and colors were the stated purview of the design review project and the Planning Commission carried forward the conditions of approval added by the Design Review Board that specified modifications in both the landscape and the building architecture. Those modifications were found to be consistent with the purview of the entitlement under review. In addition, the Planning Commission added Conditions of Approval 5i, 5j and 5k. Issue 2: Relevant Section of the El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 19.38.060 stipulates the Final design review findings and criteria. The second finding notes that the decision maker may only approve a final design review application if it finds that the application is consistent with the purposes of this Chapter and is consistent with a number of findings. The second finding is: A.2. The design policies of the General Plan and specific plans adopted by City Council. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(A) Page 5 Appellant Concern The general plan contains multiple references to creek protection, restoration, adequate setbacks, and the importance of restoring riparian vegetation along creeks. The General Plan makes it clear that extreme care should be taken with development near creeks and historic elements, and that development should be considerate and consistent with neighboring site character. This project fails to meet all of the General Plan policies (listed in the appeal.) Staff Response Staff notes that this point exceeds the scope of the final design review of the project. The project itself was found to conform in all significant respects with the General Plan by the City Council at the August 19, 2014. The City Council is only required to find that the design of the project is consistent with the General Plan to make the required findings. Staff references this point for the sake of clarity because it is in the main body of the appeal. Issue 3: Relevant Section of the El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 19.38.060.B notes when conducting design review, the decision maker shall be guided by whether the project satisfies all applicable criteria, the policies of the General Plan's Community Design Element, and by any other policies or guidelines that may be adopted by the City Council for this purpose. Criteria listed below are specific criteria that, if applicable, all projects must satisfy for approval. In the appeal, the appellants express their belief that the following criterion was not met: Criterion B1. The aesthetic design, including its exterior design and landscaping, is appropriate to the function of the project and will provide an attractive and comfortable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community. Appellant Concern: The buildings are too crowded next to the creek (as close as 4 feet) and hardscape walking paths and patios are placed directly adjacent to the creek, or nearby, leaving insufficient room for an adequately sized continuously planted riparian vegetation corridor along the creek to enhance the creek as a fully integrated aesthetic feature of the site. Because egress paths are placed too close to the creek, the design includes tight cable guard rails with a hard modern texture that is aesthetically inconsistent with the natural water course and the historic farmstead character of the site. This treatment imposes unnecessary barriers dividing the site and breaking the aesthetic continuity, and creates an impediment to maintenance work. Staff Response The Commission found in its approval of this project that the aesthetic design of the project would provide an attractive and comfortable environment, in that the project provides for a high level of architectural interest, uses high quality materials and finishes and includes a diverse list of landscaping materials and plantings. The Planning Commission carried forward the conditions of approval added by the Design Review Board that specified modifications in the landscape that they found beneficial. In addition, the Planning Commission added a Condition of Approval that reduced some of the sidewalk hardscape next to the creek, by relocating the entrance of one of the units in the new building. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(A) Page 6 The specific critique offered by the appellant that the buildings are too crowded to the creek is beyond the scope of the final design approval. The locations of the existing and proposed buildings were approved in the Development Agreement, the Planned Development District and the Use Permit by City Council on August 19, 2014. Issue 4: Relevant Section of the El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 19.38.060.B notes when conducting design review, the decision maker shall be guided by whether the project satisfies all applicable criteria, the policies of the General Plan's Community Design Element, and by any other policies or guidelines that may be adopted by the City Council for this purpose. Criteria listed below are specific criteria that, if applicable, all projects must satisfy for approval. In the appeal, the appellants express their belief that the following criterion was not met: Criterion B3. The project has been designed with consideration of neighboring development. Appellant Concern: The height of the structure is not considerate of the neighboring residents and it is out of character with the neighborhood and the scale of surrounding buildings. The shading of neighboring buildings to the north is not considerate of the neighborhood. The perimeter tree plantings were intended to buffer the impact of the imposing structure on neighbors; however, the tight space available to these trees and the large species selected will result in significant canopy overhang on neighboring properties. Staff Response: The Commission found that the project has been designed with extensive buffer style landscaping that will visually screen the project site from adjoining neighbors. The project will also be open for the neighbors to use whenever the historic building is open, offering access to the site amenities and view of the rock lined channel. Staff notes Point 1 and 2 are issues related to the height of the proposed new building. As stated earlier in the report, the height of the new building was approved in the Development Agreement, the Planned Development District and the Use Permit by the City Council on August 19, 2014. Staff references this point for the sake of clarity because it is in the main body of the appeal. Regarding point 3, although the Commission found that the project had been designed with extensive buffer style landscaping that will visually screen the project site from adjoining neighbors; it also brought forward the modified condition of approval added by the Design Review Board regarding the issue of the canopy size of the proposed perimeter trees. The Board required the substitution of the specified species of perimeter tree with a more columnar shaped tree that will create a narrower canopy. The Planning Commission further added that the adjacent neighbors should be consulted regarding the species of tree. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(A) Page 7 Issue 5: Relevant Section of the El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 19.38.060.B notes when conducting design review, the decision maker shall be guided by whether the project satisfies all applicable criteria, the policies of the General Plan's Community Design Element, and by any other policies or guidelines that may be adopted by the City Council for this purpose. Criteria listed below are specific criteria that, if applicable, all projects must satisfy for approval. In the appeal, the appellants express their belief that the following criterion was not met: Criterion B4. The project contributes to the creation of an attractive and visually interesting built environment that includes well-articulated structures that present varied building facades, rooflines, and building heights and encourages increased pedestrian activity and transit use. Appellant Concern: The discontinuity of the scale of the two buildings on the site is not complimentary or attractive. The historic structure is disrespectfully diminished and relegated to back corner of the property. According to Google maps walking directions, the distance for a pedestrian on sidewalks from the 1715 Elm site to the central entrance of Del Norte BART is about 1800 feet and the closest point on San Pablo Avenue is about 1300 feet away. The August 19th 2014 staff report quotes 1400 ft as the walking distance to BART. I have been unable to confirm the claim that either transit connection is as close as 700 feet, as the crow flies, which is the stated transit connectivity metric in the Jan 7th 2015 staff report and reaffirmed in the March 18th 2015 staff report. Staff Response: The Commission found that the project contributes to the creation of an attractive and visually interesting environment by providing well articulated new construction, a visually interesting color scheme, and varied facades with wood trellises and other detailing. The site has two pedestrian gateways leading to the public sidewalk and is 700 feet from Del Norte BART and San Pablo Avenue. Staff notes that neither of the appellant’s points fall under the purview of the final design review purview of the project. Point 1 is challenging discontinuity of the height of the existing and proposed buildings proposed for the site. The building height of the historic building is already established on site. The height of the proposed building was approved in the Development Agreement, the Planned Development District and the Use Permit by the City Council on August 19, 2014. Point 2 is taking exception to a measurement offered by staff. Staff respectfully stands by the measurement as the crow flies. These measurements were taken using the City GIS system. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(A) Page 8 Issue 6: Relevant Section of the El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 19.38.060.B notes when conducting design review, the decision maker shall be guided by whether the project satisfies all applicable criteria, the policies of the General Plan's Community Design Element, and by any other policies or guidelines that may be adopted by the City Council for this purpose. Criteria listed below are specific criteria that, if applicable, all projects must satisfy for approval. In the appeal, the appellants express their belief that the following criterion was not met: Criterion B6. The proposed design is compatible with the historical or visual character of any area recognized by the City as having such character. Appellant Concern: While the historic house is retained on site (moved to the back corner of the lot), its historic character, and particularly that of the historic site context called out in both the Corbett (2006) and VerPlank (2013) historical evaluations, is severely diminished by the crowding of the house in the rear corner of the property and overshadowing it by a much larger adjacent building. Staff Response: The Commission found the project retains two existing historical resources, the historic structure and the rock lined channel. The design of the new structure and the landscaping proposed complements and supports those historic resources on the site through architecture and plantings. Staff notes that their locations were approved in the Development Agreement, the Planned Development District and the Use Permit by City Council on August 19, 2014 and are not in the purview of the Final Design Review application. To offer further background on this topic, the studies that the appellants reference were completed as part of the environmental review completed by the City of El Cerrito during the analysis of the project. The VerPlank Study was used as part of the Initial Study completed for the project. In the Initial Study, the location and context of the historic structure was found to not cause a significant adverse impact on the resource. Issue 7: Relevant Section of the El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 19.38.060.B notes when conducting design review, the decision maker shall be guided by whether the project satisfies all applicable criteria, the policies of the General Plan's Community Design Element, and by any other policies or guidelines that may be adopted by the City Council for this purpose. Criteria listed below are specific criteria that, if applicable, all projects must satisfy for approval. In the appeal, the appellants express their belief that the following criterion was not met: Criterion B7. The aesthetic design preserves significant public views and vistas from public streets and open spaces and enhances them by providing areas for pedestrian activity. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(A) Page 9 Appellant Concern: The site itself is open space with a creek that is a view enjoyed by the public from the side walk and traveling on Elm Street. Staff Response: The Commission found that there are no significant views or open space visible from the site or on adjacent public right-of-way. However, the project retains a historic structure and provides for public access to the structure and the open space directly in front of the structure and beside the rock lined channel. Issue 8: Relevant Section of the El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 19.38.060.B notes when conducting design review, the decision maker shall be guided by whether the project satisfies all applicable criteria, the policies of the General Plan's Community Design Element, and by any other policies or guidelines that may be adopted by the City Council for this purpose. Criteria listed below are specific criteria that, if applicable, all projects must satisfy for approval. In the appeal, the appellants express their belief that the following criterion was not met: Criterion B8. The proposed landscaping plan is suitable for the type of project and will improve the appearance of the community by enhancing the building, minimizing hardscape and softening walls; and the landscape plan incorporates plant materials that are drought-tolerant, will minimize water usage, and are compatible with El Cerrito's climate. Appellant Concern While the project may exceed the required open space (mostly because the unbuildable creek area is included), it does not do a good job of thoughtfully locating hardscape with respect to the creek. Including roof and impermeable paths and patios, the total area of hardscape on the site is over 12,000 sq ft compared to the current hardscape which is under 2000 sq ft. There shouldn’t be any hardscape immediately adjacent to the creek and there should be at minimum a 10-15 foot continuously planted riparian corridor on either side of the creek with a minor exception for a single foot bridge crossing. Staff Response The Commission found that the proposed landscape is suitable for the type of project and provides an extensive plant palette that has many drought tolerant species listed. It also provides for quality open spaces, visual buffers and plants specifically valued for their bio-retention qualities. Further, the Commission included a Condition of Approval that further reduced the amount of sidewalk hardscape next to the creek, by relocating the entrance of one of the units in the new building. The project has received approval of its Storm Water Control Plan. Issue 9: Relevant Section of the El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 19.38.060.B notes when conducting design review, the decision maker shall be guided by whether the project satisfies all applicable criteria, the policies of the General Plan's Community Design Element, and by any other policies or guidelines that may be adopted by the ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(A) Page 10 City Council for this purpose. Criteria listed below are specific criteria that, if applicable, all projects must satisfy for approval. In the appeal, the appellants express their belief that the following criterion was not met: Criterion B9. The project has been designed to be energy efficient including, but not limited to, landscape design and green or eco-friendly design and materials. Appellant Concern: The ecological treatment of the creek resource is not adequate to be considered green or eco- friendly landscape design. As has been pointed out with the numerous inconsistencies with City documents regarding creeks, the creek in this plan is far too marginalized in an insufficient riparian corridor, suffering from the encroachment of hardscape directly up to most of the bank. The DRB has repeatedly expressed (including their recent work plan presentation to Council) that vinyl framed windows are a lower grade building material with poor aesthetics and their texture does not support the historical context of the architecture. Staff Response: The Commission found that the project will be consistent with Title 24 of the California Building Code. Further, the project is utilizing many plants that are drought tolerant; provide shade as well as plantings valued for their bio-retention qualities. The project has been found to have an acceptable mix of plants that will serve the many goals of landscaping on residential properties in high density areas. Trees that provide shade are a necessary component of screening adjacent uses to allow for some privacy between residents. Staff notes that the location of the creek was approved in the Development Agreement, the Planned Development District and the Use Permit by City Council on August 19, 2014 and is not in the purview of the final design review application. The new building will be required to meet the current California Building Code’s Energy Standards. It is within the purview of the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission to allow vinyl framed windows on a case by case basis. Finally, it should also be noted that the issue of vinyl windows only applies to the new building. The historic structure is required to have wood frame windows as existed in its original construction. Issue 10: Relevant Section of the El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 19.38.060.B notes when conducting design review, the decision maker shall be guided by whether the project satisfies all applicable criteria, the policies of the General Plan's Community Design Element, and by any other policies or guidelines that may be adopted by the City Council for this purpose. Criteria listed below are specific criteria that, if applicable, all projects must satisfy for approval. In the appeal, the appellants express their belief that the following criterion was not met: Criterion B10. The project design protects and integrates natural features including creeks, open space, significant vegetation, and geologic features. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(A) Page 11 Appellant Concern: The project does not, in fact, protect or restore the creek channel in any way. It leaves most of the creek channel untouched, which is a serious problem in this case, given the degraded condition of the stream, the proposal to introduce more peak storm water runoff, and the encroachment of structures 4 feet from the bank on both sides. Hardscape sidewalks are located immediately adjacent to the bank and are an unacceptable imposition on the integrity of the waterway and the riparian corridor that should flank it. The cable guard rails also marginalize and “wall off” the creek feature as an inconvenience to be dealt with rather than a unique and valuable feature that should be celebrated and enhanced to make the space more livable. The 4 foot proximity of the buildings to the creek bank (especially a 40+ foot high building) breaks the aesthetic qualities of the creek, severely curtails the potential for developing riparian landscape character, and impairs the relationship of the buildings to the creek for a harmonious site design. The technical storm water aspects of the plan are of serious concern and need further review. The Regional Water Quality Board approval has not yet been issued and they have expressed concerns about the plan it its current state. Staff Response: The Commission found that the project design protects and integrates the existing rock lined channel that transects the site. Plantings are included that will benefit both this resource and provide for a rich palate in the open space areas throughout the project. The plantings near the rock lined channel and in the bio-retention area have been purposely selected to be both aesthetically pleasing and serve to have a positive impact on the habitat of the site. Staff notes that in terms of points 1 & 2, the City of El Cerrito has approved the Storm Water Management Plan for this project and at the building permit phase, the project applicant shall submit plans and specifications that consider various storm drainage facility and run-off factors including those noted by the appellant. In addition, the Planning Commission removed additional hardscape with an additional Condition of Approval. Further, staff notes as related to Point 3, the cable guard rail has been added to prevent people from falling into the rock lined channel and the sidewalks allow for a safe, all-weather, Title 24 (Disability Act) compliant pedestrian access throughout the site. The cables themselves are very thin and will create a minimal visual screening of the amenity. And finally, the City of El Cerrito must process development applications in a timely manner once they are submitted to the city. The risk of submitting this project before the final action of the Regional Water Quality Control Board falls on the applicant. If the acts in a way that would require the applicant to amend the site plan, the costs of the modification would fall to the applicant, not the city. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(A) Page 12 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS The City completed environmental review of the project when the City Council adopted the initial study/mitigated negative declaration on August 19, 2014. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, no subsequent or supplemental environmental review can be required for a project after adoption of an initial study/mitigated negative declaration unless substantial evidence in the record shows one or more of the following: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Staff has reviewed the project and the evidence in the record and determined that no substantial evidence exists that would support any of the above findings required for subsequent or supplemental environmental review of the project as currently proposed. As such, should the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the approval of the design review, the City would rely on the previously adopted initial study/mitigated negative declaration as the CEQA document for that decision. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(A) Alternatively, should the City Council require changes to the project, Staff would need to evaluate whether those changes trigger any of the criteria for subsequent or supplemental environmental review. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS The City Attorney has reviewed the agenda bill and attachments and has approved their form and content. Reviewe~ft'( _ Scott Hanin City Manager Attachments: 1. Draft City Council Resolution XX-XX 2. Design Review Staff Report of January 7, 2015 3. Design Review Board Resolution of January 7, 2015 4. Minutes of Design Review Board of January 7, 2015 5. Planning Commission Staff Report ofMarch 18,2015 6. Planning Commission Resolution of March 18, 2015 7. Minutes of Planning Commission of March 18, 2015 8. Appeal Letter dated March 31, 2015 9. Plan Set submitted for the Design Review Meeting of January 7, 2015 10. Appellant Petition submitted 3-18-15 (re-submitted for 5-19-15 hearing) 11. Appellant submitted document from Environmental Protection Agency Page 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6(A) Attachment 1 Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2015–XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL CERRITO DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR 1715 ELM STREET. WHEREAS, the subject site is located at 1715 Elm Street; and WHEREAS, the zoning district of the site is RM (Multifamily Residential); and WHEREAS, the general plan land use designation of the site is High Density; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2014 the City circulated an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declarations pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2014 meeting, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, received public testimony and directed staff to bring the project back for formal action; and WHEREAS on April 16, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, received public testimony and adopted Resolution PC14-06, adopting an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and also adopted Resolution PC14-07, approving a Planned Development Use Permit; and WHEREAS on April 28, 2014, Howdy Goudey, Robin Mitchell, Jason Hasley, Keystone Montessori School, Linda Shehabi, Dan & Henia Pines, and Julia Lucia filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s Planned Development Use Permit approval at 1715 Elm Street; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 2014, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal. The City Council closed the public hearing and continued consideration of the appeal to June 23, 2014; and WHEREAS on June 23, 2014, the City Council held a special meeting and requested additional information and continued deliberations; WHEREAS on August 19, 2014, the City Council reopened the hearing, received additional information and based on all the information before them and the testimony received, voted to approve the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Development Agreement, the Planned Development District including a Zoning Map Amendment, and a Use Permit for the project at 1715 Elm Street; and WHEREAS, on November 10, 2014, the applicant submitted Design Review application for 1715 Elm Street; and WHEREAS, at their January 7, 2015 meeting, the Design Review Board held a duly noticed public hearing, received public testimony and adopted Resolution DRB 14-08, approving the Design Review Application for 1715 Elm Street; and WHEREAS, on January 20, 2015, Howdy Goudey and Robin Mitchell filed an appeal of the Design Review Board approval of the Design Review Application; and ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6(A) Attachment 1 Page 2 WHEREAS, at its March 18, 2015 meeting, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, received public testimony and adopted Resolution PC15-02, denying the appeal and approving the Design Review Application; and WHEREAS, On March 26, 2015, Howdy Goudey and Robin Mitchell filed an appeal of the Planning Commission decision; and WHEREAS, on May 19, 2015, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal; and WHEREAS, based upon the evidence presented in the record on this matter, including the staff report and oral and written testimony and the proceedings before the Planning Commission, the Council has considered the appeal. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of El Cerrito that it finds the project to be consistent with the following: 1. The applicable standards and requirements of this Zoning Ordinance.( 19.38.060 A.1); The project complies with all of the relevant standards of the El Cerrito Zoning Ordinance. It has received all other necessary land use approvals as stated in the Zoning Ordinance at the August 19, 2014 City Council meeting. The findings relevant to Design Review approval are listed below. 2. The design policies of the General Plan and specific plans adopted by City Council. ( 19.38.060 A.2); Pursuant to the City of El Cerrito General Plan, the following policies are pertinent to the proposed project: CD1.2 Design Concept, CD1.3 High Quality Design, and CD5.1 Design Review Process. 3. Any applicable design guidelines adopted by the City Council.( 19.38.060 A.3); No other design guidelines apply to project. 4. The design review criteria set forth in the following subsection. (19.38.060 A.4 Please see below. 5. Any planning or zoning approvals by the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator.(19.38.060 A.5); The project is consistent with the approvals of the August 19, 2014 City Council action that approved the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Development Agreement, the Planned Development District including a Zoning Map Amendment, and a Use Permit for the project at 1715 Elm Street. 6. Any other relevant policies or regulations of the City. (19.38.060 A.6); No other policies or regulations apply to this project. 7. The design review criteria set forth in the following subsection ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6(A) Attachment 1 Page 3 a. The aesthetic design, including its exterior design and landscaping, is appropriate to the function of the project and will provide an attractive and comfortable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community. ( 19.38.060 B.1); The aesthetic design of the project will provide an attractive and comfortable environment, in that the project provides for a high level of architectural interest, uses high quality materials and finishes and includes a diverse list of landscaping materials and plantings. b. Project details, colors, materials, and landscaping, are fully integrated with one another, and used in a manner that is visually consistent with the proposed architectural design. (19.38.060 B.2); The project features a unified color scheme in an earth tone hue that is complementary to the historic building’s colors. It uses durable, long lasting materials such as cement siding on the new building as well as quality historically appropriate materials on the historic building, such as wood siding. The overall design of the project, including the architectural details and the landscaping tie together well to appear as one unified project. c. The project has been designed with consideration of neighboring development. (19.38.060 B.3); The project has been designed with extensive buffer style landscaping that will visually screen the project site from adjoining neighbors. The project will also be open for the neighbors to use whenever the historic building is open, offering access to the site amenities and view of the rock lined channel. d. The project contributes to the creation of an attractive and visually interesting built environment that includes well-articulated structures that present varied building facades, rooflines, and building heights and encourages increased pedestrian activity and transit use. ( 19.38.060 B.4); The project contributes to the creation of an attractive and visually interesting environment by providing well articulated new construction, a visually interesting color scheme, and varied facades with wood trellises and other detailing. The site has two pedestrian gateways leading to the public sidewalk and is 700 feet from Del Norte BART and San Pablo Avenue. e. Street frontages are attractive and interesting for pedestrians, address the street and provide for greater safety by allowing for surveillance of the street by people inside buildings and elsewhere. ( 19.38.060 B.5); The street frontage is visually attractive with both a pedestrian and vehicular access offered through architecturally varied entrances and gates. The project also locates a door, windows and a patio on the Elm Street elevation, increasing ‘eyes on the street’ from both inside and outside of the new building. f. The proposed design is compatible with the historical or visual character of any area recognized by the City as having such character. ( 19.38.060 B.6); The project retains two existing historical resources, the historic structure and the rock lined channel. The design of the new structure and the landscaping proposed complements and supports those historic resources on the site through architecture and plantings. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6(A) Attachment 1 Page 4 g. The aesthetic design preserves significant public views and vistas from public streets and open spaces and enhances them by providing areas for pedestrian activity. ( 19.38.060 B.7); There are no significant views or open space visible from the site or on adjacent public right-of-way. However, the project retains a historic structure and provides for public access to the structure and the open space directly in front of the structure and beside the rock lined channel. h. The proposed landscaping plan is suitable for the type of project and will improve the appearance of the community by enhancing the building, minimizing hardscape and softening walls; and the landscape plan incorporates plant materials that are drought- tolerant, will minimize water usage, and are compatible with El Cerrito’s climate. (19.38.060 B.8); The proposed landscape is suitable for the type of project and provides an extensive plant palette that has many drought tolerant species listed. It also provides for quality open spaces, visual buffers and plants specifically valued for their bio-retention qualities. i. The project has been designed to be energy efficient including, but not limited to, landscape design and green or eco-friendly design and materials. ( 19.38.060 B.9); The project will be consistent with Title 24 of the California Building Code. Further, the project is utilizing many plants that are drought tolerant; provide shade as well as plantings valued for their bio- retention qualities. j. The project design protects and integrates natural features including creeks, open space, significant vegetation, and geologic features. Projects along the Ohlone Greenway shall enhance the usability and aesthetic appeal of the Greenway by integrating it into the fabric of the City through building designs that include entries, yards, patios, and windows that open onto and face the Ohlone Greenway. ( 19.38.060 B.10); The project design protects and integrates the existing rock lined channel that transects the site. Plantings are included that will benefit both this resource and provide for a rich palate in the open space areas throughout the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that after careful consideration of facts, correspondence, and testimony, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the El Cerrito City Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission’s approval of Design Review application at 1715 Elm Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. The project shall be developed and maintained substantially in compliance with the plans dated November 10, 2014. Minor changes may be approved by the Zoning Administrator as noted in the El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 19.32.110.B. 2. If not used, this design review approval shall expire two years from the date of this action. 3. All previous conditions of approval included as part of the August 19th City Council public hearing remain a part of this project entitlement package, in addition to any conditions included herein. 4. This project shall confirm to its approved Storm Water Control Plan dated December 15, 2014. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6(A) Attachment 1 Page 5 5. The applicant shall submit a revised set of plans that illustrate compliance with the following modifications. This set of plans shall be submitted prior to the submittal of building plans and are subject to staff approval. The intent of this condition is that once this set of plans is approved by staff, they will be included in the building set of plans submitted to the city. The plan set submitted to staff shall include: Landscape and Irrigation Plans: a) Revised Gates. Both sets of proposed gates shall be six feet wide. Each set of gates shall consist of two sets of three foot wide panels. b) The current lighting scones along interior paths shall be replaced by light stick-style lighting. c) All of the proposed Oak trees on the plan set shall be removed and replaced with a more columnar shaped tree that will create a narrower canopy. d) Subsurface irrigation system shall be added to the C3 area of the site plan and illustrate that proposed shrubs are located in way to not disrupt the adjacent irrigation pipe. e) Address the curved top of the raised bed and show the final design of the seating area. f) Show location of proposed vines on plan set. Ensure they are in areas that already provide irrigation. g) Specify appropriate location and type of groundcover in space immediately adjacent to creek. h) To avoid the unintentional spread of Sudden Oak Disease to Oak trees proposed on this site and in the area, no plant species that are known for the ability to serve as vectors for the disease shall be allowed on plant list. This list includes, but is not limited to: Bay Laurel and Azaleas. i) The staff will engage in a dialogue with neighbors to attempt to identify a preferred species of tree for the perimeter tree planting. j) Applicant shall consider using a 15 gallon tree for the perimeter planting tree instead of the prescribed 24 inch box size. k) The outside path leading to unit on the southwest dwelling unit shall be removed and the access to that unit shall be included on the interior of the building. The former path area shall be planted with riparian plantings or other appropriate plantings. Building Plans: l) The type of windows along the ground elevation shall be specified in the plan set as either casement or slider windows. m) All windows on the new building shall not contain false muntins and shall use dark bronze vinyl framing. n) There shall be no bars on the ground floor windows. o) The siding shall be Hardie Brand and type entitled “Artisan” lap siding with mitered corners. p) On the east elevation, the horizontal band shall be removed and the windows on the central bay area shall be made thinner and taller. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6(A) Attachment 1 Page 6 I CERTIFY that at a special meeting on May 19, 2015 the City Council of the City of El Cerrito passed this Resolution by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: IN WITNESS of this action, I sign this document and affix the corporate seal of the City of El Cerrito on May 2015. Cheryl Morse, City Clerk APPROVED: Mark Friedman, Mayor ---PAGE BREAK--- H:\PLANNING\Applications\2005\6133 1715 Elm Street - UP - DRB\2014\final DRB\DRB Staff Report - Jan 2015-sm.doc Page 1 of 7 Community Development Department - Planning Division 10890 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, CA 94530 (510) 215-4330 - FAX: (510) 233-5401 [EMAIL REDACTED] DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: January 7, 2015 I. SUBJECT Application: PL14-0159 Applicant: Edward Biggs Location: 1715 Elm Street Zoning: RM (Multi-family Residential) General Plan: High-Density Residential APN: 502-112-038 Request: Design Review Board consideration of final architectural review as it applies to aesthetic design of the structures, landscaping, lighting and other architectural features of the project proposed for 1715 Elm Street. CEQA: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. II. BACKGROUND This project appeared at a public hearing before the Board in November, 2013. Since that time, it has been considered at the following agendized meetings: March 19, 2014: Planning Commission – Study Session April 16, 2014: Planning Commission – Public Hearing May 21, 2014: Planning Commission – Public Hearing June 2, 2014: City Council – Public Hearing June 23, 2014: City Council – Public Hearing August 19, 2014: City Council – Public Hearing For all associated documents, including prior staff reports and CEQA documents, please see: www.elcerrito.org/1715Elm. The project received approval by the by the City Council at the August 19, 2014 meeting. These entitlements included: Development Agreement, the creation of a Planned Development District including a Zoning Map Amendment and a Use Permit. The applicant will still need to secure a parcel map at a later date. Attachment 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- H:\PLANNING\Applications\2005\6133 1715 Elm Street - UP - DRB\2014\final DRB\DRB Staff Report - Jan 2015-sm.doc Page 2 of 7 The purview of the Board this evening is the Final Design Review of the project. Section 19.38.040 establishes the scope of final design review as the following: The Zoning Administrator or Design Review Board shall approve, conditionally approve or deny, or make recommendations on applications for final aesthetic architectural review based on consideration of the requirements of this Chapter as they apply to design of the structures, landscaping, lighting and other architectural features of an application including: A. Building articulation, facade treatment and architectural details. B. Exterior colors and materials. C. Character defining features and the relation to existing settings. D. Design of fences, walls, and screen plantings, including but not limited to height of those structures, materials, colors, and type. E. Location and type of landscaping including selection and size of plant materials and design of hardscape including landscape lighting. F. The size, location, design, color, number, lighting, and materials of signs. G. Design of the streetscape, including but not limited to landscaping, furniture and materials. III. DISCUSSION Site Description and Setting The project site is a fairly level, rectangular 0.42-acre lot located at 1715 Elm Street. The site slopes from a high point along the Elm Street frontage to the western boundary, representing a three percent slope across the property. It currently includes a vacant two-story house built in 1897, a detached garage, a well house, and a shed. A rock-lined channel runs east-west across the site along the southern edge of the property approximately 20 feet from the house. The project site is primarily surrounded by residential uses. Residential properties and Elm, Street are to the east, residential properties and Hill Street are to the north, residential properties and Liberty Street are to the west, and a day care and Blake Street are located to the south. A charter school campus is located approximately 700 feet to the northeast, while San Pablo Avenue and the Del Norte BART station are approximately one quarter mile to the northwest. Development Proposal The applicant proposes to construct a multi-unit development consisting of: 14 new dwelling units, 15 parking spaces tucked under the proposed main building, 1,548 square feet of private open space, 2,874 square feet of common open space *The existing single family dwelling is being retained on site and relocated to the southeast corner of the subject property and will be used as a community center type use. Building Design Although not required as a strict condition of approval for this project, the Department of Interior Standards recommends that new buildings that share sites with historic buildings be designed to be compatible with the historic character of the historic building in terms of size, scale design, material, color, and texture. The applicant has designed the new construction to meet that recommendation, including a number of architectural features that reflect the style of the historic building. See page A-8. A-9 and A-10 of the plan set for details. ---PAGE BREAK--- H:\PLANNING\Applications\2005\6133 1715 Elm Street - UP - DRB\2014\final DRB\DRB Staff Report - Jan 2015-sm.doc Page 3 of 7 New Building The new main building is proposed to be located on the north side of the site. It is three stories tall with a gable roofline. It has a high level of architectural interest and detail. The elevations on the main building include both vertical architectural elements and horizontal color bands. The proposed materials include fiber cement horizontal siding and brown asphalt shingle roofing. Detailing includes vinyl windows, wood awnings with shingle roofs, metal railings and wood trellises and pergolas. Please see Page A-8 and A-9 of the plan set for details of the proposed elevations. As noted on page A-13 and presented in color samples at the meeting, the paint palette contains three siding colors (Maybeck Muslin, Bungalow Brown and Wild Cattail), two trim colors (Daisy White and Americano) and one accent color (Drive-In Cherry). The window detail is shown on page A-16 of the plan set. The architect is calling out Milgard Montecito Series windows or equal in the color white. Historic Structure The subject property currently contains a Queen Anne-style, single-family dwelling constructed in 1897. It is proposed to be moved and retained on the southwest quadrant of the site. Pursuant to the Development Agreement, the applicant is required to complete the following improvements to the structure: 1. Restore all four side of the exterior of the building façade, including windows, the historic wood trim around the doors and windows, as well as the door in the main entrance to the Department of Interior Standards. 2. The historic structure shall be placed on a new foundation in the location shown on the site plan. 3. The plumbing and electrical systems will be updated in compliance with the current building code. 4. An Americans Disabilities Act compliant bathroom and exterior lift will be added the structure. The lift has been proposed along the rear elevation as noted on page A-10. A new porch and railing based on the existing porch and railing are proposed for the front elevation. In addition, this building is proposed to retain the fish-scale and horizontal wooden siding, painted Dove White. The new porch and railing are proposed to be painted Dove White as well, and a trim color called Puritan Gray is proposed as an accent color on the building. The roof is proposed to consist of composition shingles in a dark grey color. Landscaping Design There are three common areas of open space represented on page L-1 of the plan. One is directly in front of the restored historic structure. It features a turf oval surrounded by a concrete walk that provides for public pedestrian entry from Elm Street. It is bounded by a six foot high board fence with two feet of lattice along the top on the southern elevation and an open cable guard rail on the north elevation, abutting the rock lined channel. A stone seatwall provides an entry marker to the stairs leading to the historic building. The area also includes three raised herb planting beds over a patio of decompressed granite, a picnic table and a BBQ. Plantings that are found in this area include five Leyland Cypresses, two orchard style trees and an Oregon Ash Tree. Between the walk and the rock lined channel, a row of snowberries, Pacific Coast Irises and Santa Barbara Sedge is planned. The Development Agreement reflects that the use of the open space in front of the historic structure will be available for public use during daylight hours when the structure is open to the public. ---PAGE BREAK--- H:\PLANNING\Applications\2005\6133 1715 Elm Street - UP - DRB\2014\final DRB\DRB Staff Report - Jan 2015-sm.doc Page 4 of 7 North of this larger area, there is second area that is proposed to include the private pedestrian entry to the new main building, along with accent trees and brick paved paths. This area also includes a peaked trellis with vines and a seating area. Plantings in this area include two Creek Dogwood and three Pink-Flowering Currants. Project landscaping along the perimeter of the site includes densely planted landscape setbacks around the proposed buildings to provide a buffer between the project and adjacent residential sites. Landscape plantings in this area include: Valley Oak, Bigleaf Maple, California Bay Laurel. Also located in the landscape buffer area there are two storm water bio-retention areas. They are located along the eastern side of the property, one adjacent to the new building and one adjacent to the historic building. The landscape plan on page L-1 notes a list of infiltration plants and a bio- retention seed mix to be planted in these areas. The City Engineer has reviewed the C-3 plans submitted to the city and has approved the application with conditions. All the land will be owned and maintained by an HOA created by the applicant for the 1715 Elm Street project. Environmental Review Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been approved for this project. This entitlement is found to be consistent with the project analyzed in the Initial Study, therefore no further environmental review is necessary. Findings The Design Review Board may only approve a final design application if it finds that the application is consistent with the purposes of this Chapter and is consistent with: Section 19.36.160 ECMC 1. The applicable standards and requirements of this Zoning Ordinance; The project complies with all of the relevant standards of the El Cerrito Zoning Ordinance. It has received all other necessary land use approvals as stated in the Zoning Ordinance at the August 19, 2014 City Council meeting. The findings relevant to Design Review approval are listed below. 2. The design policies of the General Plan and specific plans adopted by City Council; Pursuant to the City of El Cerrito General Plan, the following policies are pertinent to the proposed project: CD1.2 Design Concept, CD1.3 High Quality Design, and CD5.1 Design Review Process. 3. Any applicable design guidelines adopted by the City Council; None 4. The design review criteria set forth in the following subsection; ---PAGE BREAK--- H:\PLANNING\Applications\2005\6133 1715 Elm Street - UP - DRB\2014\final DRB\DRB Staff Report - Jan 2015-sm.doc Page 5 of 7 a. The aesthetic design, including its exterior design and landscaping, is appropriate to the function of the project and will provide an attractive and comfortable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community. The aesthetic design of the project will provide an attractive and comfortable environment, in that the project provides for a high level of architectural interest, uses high quality materials and finishes and includes a diverse list of landscaping materials and plantings. b. Project details, colors, materials, and landscaping, are fully integrated with one another, and used in a manner that is visually consistent with the proposed architectural design. The project features a unified color scheme in an earth tone hue that is complementary to the historic building’s colors. It uses durable, long lasting materials such as cement siding on the new building as well as quality historically appropriate materials on the historic building, such as wood siding. The overall design of the project, including the architectural details and the landscaping tie together well to appear as one unified project. c. The project has been designed with consideration of neighboring development. The project has been designed with extensive buffer style landscaping that will visually screen the project site from adjoining neighbors. The project will also be open for the neighbors to use whenever the historic building is open, offering access to the site amenities and view of the rock lined channel. d. The project contributes to the creation of an attractive and visually interesting built environment that includes well-articulated structures that present varied building facades, rooflines, and building heights and encourages increased pedestrian activity and transit use. The project contributes to the creation of an attractive and visually interesting environment by providing well articulated new construction, a visually interesting color scheme, and varied facades with wood trellises and other detailing. The site has two pedestrian gateways leading to the public sidewalk and is 700 feet from Del Norte BART and San Pablo Avenue. e. Street frontages are attractive and interesting for pedestrians, address the street and provide for greater safety by allowing for surveillance of the street by people inside buildings and elsewhere. The street frontage is visually attractive with both a pedestrian and vehicular access offered through architecturally varied entrances and gates. The project also locates a door, windows and a patio on the Elm Street elevation, increasing ‘eyes on the street’ from both inside and outside of the new building. f. The proposed design is compatible with the historical or visual character of any area recognized by the City as having such character. The project retains two existing historical resources, the historic structure and the rock lined channel. The design of the new structure and the landscaping proposed complements and supports those historic resources on the site through architecture and plantings. ---PAGE BREAK--- H:\PLANNING\Applications\2005\6133 1715 Elm Street - UP - DRB\2014\final DRB\DRB Staff Report - Jan 2015-sm.doc Page 6 of 7 g. The aesthetic design preserves significant public views and vistas from public streets and open spaces and enhances them by providing areas for pedestrian activity. There are no significant views or open space visible from the site or on adjacent public right- of-way. However, the project retains a historic structure and provides for public access to the structure and the open space directly in front of the structure and beside the rock lined channel. h. The proposed landscaping plan is suitable for the type of project and will improve the appearance of the community by enhancing the building, minimizing hardscape and softening walls; and the landscape plan incorporates plant materials that are drought- tolerant, will minimize water usage, and are compatible with El Cerrito’s climate. The proposed landscape is suitable for the type of project and provides an extensive plant palette that has many drought tolerant species listed. It also provides for quality open spaces, visual buffers and plants specifically valued for their bio-retention qualities. i. The project has been designed to be energy efficient including, but not limited to, landscape design and green or eco-friendly design and materials. The project will be consistent with Title 24 of the California Building Code. Further, the project is utilizing many plants that are drought tolerant; provide shade as well as plantings valued for their bio-retention qualities. j. The project design protects and integrates natural features including creeks, open space, significant vegetation, and geologic features. Projects along the Ohlone Greenway shall enhance the usability and aesthetic appeal of the Greenway by integrating it into the fabric of the City through building designs that include entries, yards, patios, and windows that open onto and face the Ohlone Greenway. The project design protects and integrates the existing rock lined channel that transects the site. Plantings are included that will benefit both this resource and provide for a rich palate in the open space areas throughout the project. 5. Any planning or zoning approvals by the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator; The project does not require any additional approval by the Planning Commission or the Zoning Administrator. 6. Any other relevant policies or regulations of the City. The project is in compliance with the zoning requirements and the goals and policies outlined in the General Plan. IV. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Planning Application No. PL14-0159 as conditioned by the draft resolution in Attachment 1, Resolution No. 14-08 granting Design Review approval the project at 1715 Elm Street ---PAGE BREAK--- H:\PLANNING\Applications\2005\6133 1715 Elm Street - UP - DRB\2014\final DRB\DRB Staff Report - Jan 2015-sm.doc Page 7 of 7 Proposed Motion: Move adoption of Design Review Board Resolution 14-08 granting Design Review approval for the project located at 1715 Elm Street Appeal Period: Within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision, the Design Review Board action may be appealed to the Planning Commission. Attachments: 1) Draft Resolution 2) Plan Set dated November 10, 2014 ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Community Development Department MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Wednesday, January 7, 2015 7:30 PM El Cerrito City Hall Council Chambers 10890 San Pablo Avenue Roll Call: Maggie Leighly, Carl Groch, and John Thompson. Christophe Laverne had an excused absence. 1. Council/Staff Liaison Announcements and Reports No report was made. 2. Comments from the Public No comments were received. 3. Approval of Minutes Motion to approve the December 3, 2014 minutes: Groch, 2nd:Thompson. Vote: Ayes: Groch, Leighly, Thompson Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Laverne 4. Board Member Communication/Conflict of Interest Disclosure Nothing was reported. 5. Public Hearing – Elm Street Condominiums Application: PL No 6133 Applicant: Eddie Biggs Location: 1715 Elm Street APN: 502-112-038 Zoning: RM (Multi-Family Residential) General Plan: High Density Residential Request: Design Review Board consideration of final architectural review as it applies to aesthetic design of the structures, landscaping, lighting and other architectural features of the project proposed for 1715 Elm Street. CEQA: A Mitigated Negative Declaration is being prepared for this project. Development Services Manager, Margaret presented the project. Attachment 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of El Cerrito Design Review Board Meeting Minutes Design Review Board Minutes 2 of 3 January 7, 2015 Carl Campos of LCA Architects gave a presentation of the project submittal. The public hearing was opened Howdy Goudey of 635 Elm Street addressed the Board and spoke in opposition, noting the project was not in scale with neighborhood and possibly premature to be in front of the Board for consideration. Franklin Leong of Manor Circle addressed the Board and spoke in opposition, noting the number of variances needed for the project. Robin Mitchell of 635 Elm Street addressed the Board and stated that dark vinyl was more subject to expansion due to heat than white vinyl. The public hearing was closed. Motion to approve the project at 1715 Elm Street: Groch, 2nd: Thompson. Vote: Ayes: Groch, Leighly, Thompson Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Laverne The Board added the following condition of approval: 1. The applicant shall submit a revised set of plans that illustrate compliance with the following modifications. This set of plans shall be submitted prior to the submittal of building plans and are subject to staff approval. The intent of this condition is that once this set of plans is approved by staff, they will be included in the building set of plans submitted to the city. The plan set submitted to staff shall include: Landscape and Irrigation Plans: a) Revised Gates. Both sets of proposed gates shall be six feet wide. Each set of gates shall consist of two sets of three foot wide panels. b) The current lighting scones along interior paths shall be replaced by light stick-style lighting. c) All of the proposed Oak trees on the plan set shall be removed and replaced with a more columnar shaped tree that will create a narrower canopy. d) Sub surface irrigation system shall be added to the C3 area of the site plan and illustrate that proposed shrubs are located in way to not disrupt the adjacent irrigation pipe. e) Address the curved top of the raised bed and show the final design of the seating area. f) Show location of proposed vines on plan set. Ensure they are in areas that already provide irrigation. g) Specify appropriate location and type of groundcover in space immediately adjacent to creek. h) To avoid the unintentional spread of Sudden Oak Disease to Oak trees proposed on this site and in the area, no plant species that are known for the ability to serve as vectors for the disease shall be allowed on plant list. This list includes, but is not limited to: Bay Laurel and Azaleas. Building Plans: ---PAGE BREAK--- City of El Cerrito Design Review Board Meeting Minutes Design Review Board Minutes 3 of 3 January 7, 2015 i) The type of windows along the ground elevation shall be specified in the plan set as either casement or slider windows. j) All windows on the new building shall not contain false muttons and shall use dark bronze vinyl framing. k) There shall be no bars on the ground floor windows. l) The siding shall be Hardie Brand and type entitled “Artisan” lap siding with mitered corners. 1. On the east elevation, the horizontal band shall be removed and the windows on the central bay area shall be made thinner and taller. 6. Staff Communications None. 7. Adjournment 9:15 p.m. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Page 1 Community Development Department - Planning Division 10890 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, CA 94530 (510) 215-4330 - FAX: (510) 233-5401 [EMAIL REDACTED] PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REVISED Typographical Changes A citation on page 5 has been corrected. The incorrect numbering is shown as 19.36.160 and the correct numbering is shown as 19.38.060. There are additional clarifications regarding the numbering used for some findings. The numbering referenced in DRB staff report, the appeal letter, and subsequently in the appeal staff report reflects a simple numbering list, not the municipal code section for each finding. This notation has created some confusion. Therefore, staff has added the subsection of the municipal code to each finding so each may be cross-referenced. Please note that the actual text used for each finding is written correctly as found in the El Cerrito Municipal Code, and this clarification is not grounds for re-noticing or otherwise postponing any action of the Planning Commission, this evening. Meeting Date: March 18, 2015 I. SUBJECT Application: PL14-0159 Applicant: Edward Biggs Appellant: Howdy Goudey and Robin Mitchell Location: 1715 Elm Street Zoning: RM Multi-family Residential General Plan: High-Density Residential APN: 502-112-038 Request: Planning Commission consideration of an appeal to the decision of the Design Review Board to approve of the final architectural review as it applies to aesthetic design of the structures, landscaping, lighting and other architectural features of the project proposed for 1715 Elm Street CEQA: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been approved for this project. Attachment 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 II. BACKGROUND Entitlement History for the project: March 19, 2014: Planning Commission – Study Session April 16, 2014: Planning Commission – Public Hearing May 21, 2014: Planning Commission – Public Hearing June 2, 2014: City Council – Public Hearing June 23, 2014: City Council – Public Hearing August 19, 2014: City Council – Public Hearing For all associated documents, including prior staff reports and CEQA documents, please see: www.elcerrito.org/1715Elm. The overall project entitlement package was approved by the by the City Council on August 19, 2014. These entitlements included: Development Agreement, the creation of a Planned Development District including a Zoning Map Amendment and a Use Permit. The project that is the subject of the appeal before the Planning Commission is the Final Design Review of the project, only. III. DISCUSSION The project was the subject of a public hearing before the Design Review Board on January 7, 2015. After review of the staff report, presentation from the applicant, and comments from the public, the Board unanimously approved the project. The staff report, the resolution which incorporates the findings and conditions of approval made by the Board and the Draft Minutes are all included in this report as Attachment 2, 3 and 4. On January 20, 2015, Howdy Goudy filed an appeal of the Design Review decision. The complete appeal document is included in this report as Attachment 5. Appeal The legal framework for appeals is stated in several sections of the zoning ordinance. Specifically: • Pursuant to Section 19.39.040.C. Decisions of the Design Review Board may be appealed to the Planning Commission by filing a written appeal with the Zoning Administrator. • Pursuant to Section 19.38.070.A. Appeals of design review approvals shall be based on design issues that are within the scope of Chapter 19.38 (Design Review) and the purview of the design review unless the appellant asserts that the decision exceeds the authority of the decision-making body in conducting design review. • Pursuant to 19.39.040 D. The authorized hearing body shall review the appeal, the record, and any written correspondence submitted after the appeal has been filed, and shall take one of the following actions: 1. Conduct a public hearing and take action on the appeal; or 2. Remand the matter to the decision-making body or official to cure a deficiency in the record or the proceedings. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 Staff has noticed this meeting as a public hearing in order to allow the Commission the opportunity to take action on the appeal if the Commission chooses to do so. Pursuant to 19.39.050, when reviewing any decision on appeal, the hearing body shall use the same standards for decision-making required for the original decision. The hearing body may adopt the same decision and findings as were originally approved or different ones. This language establishes that the Planning Commission must use the same findings as the Design Review Board when reviewing the application before them. However, the Commission is free to make a new decision based on the information in the record and any written correspondence submitted after the appeal has been filed. This style of appeal review is also known as a de novo hearing. If the Commission chooses to take an action at tonight’s meeting, there are two options for the body to consider: 1. It may review the findings made by the Design Review Board and supported in the staff analysis below, in their approval of the project before them at the January meeting and affirm the decision of the Board, or 2. It may review the findings made by the Design Review Board and supported in the staff analysis below, in their approval of the project before them at the January meeting and uphold the appeal, effectively overturning the decision of the Board, Staff Analysis of the Appeal Staff has summarized the items in the appeal that fall within the purview of the project in the order that they appear in the appeal letter. As a frame for the analysis, for each issue of concern noted by the appellants, staff first lists the appropriate design review findings/criteria that pertain to the issues under discussion, then summarizes each point the appellants note related to that specific finding/criteria (staff quotes the appellants unless otherwise noted in these sections), and finally offers a response to each of these points. The first four pages of the appeal notes many different aspects of the development project at 1715 Elm that fall outside of the scope of final design review purview of the project. No further staff analysis is offered to these components of the appeal. Issue 1 Relevant Required Scope Section 19.38.040 establishes the scope of final design review as the following: The Zoning Administrator or Design Review Board shall approve, conditionally approve or deny, or make recommendations on applications for final aesthetic architectural review based on consideration of the requirements of this Chapter as they apply to design of the structures, landscaping, lighting and other architectural features of an application including: A. Building articulation, facade treatment and architectural details. B. Exterior colors and materials. C. Character defining features and the relation to existing settings. D. Design of fences, walls, and screen plantings, including but not limited to height of those structures, materials, colors, and type. E. Location and type of landscaping including selection and size of plant materials and design of hardscape including landscape lighting. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 F. The size, location, design, color, number, lighting, and materials of signs. G. Design of the streetscape, including but not limited to landscaping, furniture and materials. Appellant Concern: The project specifically does not meet criterion c, listed above. 1. The 4 foot proximity of the buildings to the creek bank (especially a 40+ foot high building) breaks the aesthetic qualities of the creek and severely curtails the existing character and limits the potential character and the relation of the buildings to this important existing feature. 2. Diminishing the existing historic structure by positioning it in a rear corner 3 feet from the property line and overshadowing it by a building roughly twice as tall, is also an aesthetic disservice to the site and its historic context. The relative scale of the buildings makes the historic home look like a playhouse instead of respecting it as an important historic structure. 3. The tightness of the buildings to the creek corridor and the hardscape walking paths right up to the creek includes cement paths and tight cable guard rails with hard modern texture that is aesthetically inconsistent with the natural water course and the historic farmstead character of the site. It is particularly troubling that in areas with less constraint, such as the patios and walks, there is still unnecessary close imposition on the creek and the corridor that should be exploited to accentuate this unique existing natural feature and assure that it is properly uses as a harmonious asset of the landscape design. 4. This plan attempts to combine too much in too little space with large buildings and small setbacks. In an attempt to screen the inappropriate intrusion, trees that are too big for the remaining space are crammed in for good measure, but they cannot hide or remedy the discontinuity of the site. Staff Response: The scope of the entitlement is limited to the final aesthetic architectural review based on consideration of the requirements of Section 19.38.040 as they apply to design of the structures, landscaping, lighting and other architectural features of the application. The location and height of the new building, the historic structure and the rock lined channel were finalized in the approval of the Planned Development District by City Council on August 19, 2014. Therefore, the request that the buildings be moved away from the creek (point to move the historic structure elsewhere on site (point 2) or raising concerns as to the relative height of the proposed new building (points 1 & 2) are all outside the scope of this project review. The issues regarding the landscape components including the patios, walking paths and cable railing are within the purview of the design review. The members of the Board did not find that the patios, walkways or railings were out of character with their settings. They did find that the project retains two existing historical resources, the historic structure and the rock lined channel. Further, the design of the new structure and the landscaping proposed complements and supports those historic resources on the site through architecture and plantings. Staff notes that while the Board did offer extensive modifications to some plantings, irrigation, the seating area, the light sconces, and the proposed gates, no concerns were expressed in area noted by the appellants. Issue 2 Appellant Concern: The project specifically does not meet criterion e, listed above. 1. California Bay Laurel is a lovely tree, however it is also the vector for Sudden Oak Death disease, so it might be worth consulting with the City Arborist and/or the Tree Committee about the wisdom of planting this tree in this location with surrounding oaks. 2. Many of the other perimeter trees are lovely in and of themselves, but potentially quite large and unnecessarily crowded in the narrow (10-15 foot) spaces between the building and property ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 lines. Trees of this size will extend significantly over the property line and likely receive pruning by neighbors that is not holistically intended for the healthy management of the whole tree. Unbalanced and unhealthy trees may result. Light will be severely limited to lower living units in both the new construction and some of the neighboring properties. Staff Response: As the appellants noted in the appeal, the Board also had concerns regarding the canopy of the perimeter trees and the spread of sudden oak disease. They added conditions of approval to address each of these concerns. Specifically: 1. C. All of the proposed Oak trees on the plan set shall be removed and replaced with a more columnar shaped tree that will create a narrower canopy. 1.H. To avoid the unintentional spread of Sudden Oak Disease to Oak trees proposed on this site and in the area, no plant species that are known for the ability to serve as vectors for the disease shall be allowed on plant list. This list includes, but is not limited to: Bay Laurel and Azaleas. Issue 3 Relevant Required Findings of Fact Section 19.36.160 19.38.060 zoning ordinance lists the necessary findings that the Board must make to approve the project. The first finding is that the project is consistent with that the applicable standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Appellant Concern: It is factually inaccurate to say the project meets all relevant standards of the zoning ordinance. It was relieved from several standards by the Aug. 19th Council action, placing it in a planned development designated zone. Staff Response: As the appellants noted in the appeal, this point was addressed in the approval of the Planned Development District by the City Council on August 19, 2014. With that approval in place, the project is consistent with the standards and requirements of the zoning ordinance. Issue 4 Relevant Required Findings of Fact Finding 4a B.1 states that the aesthetic design, including its exterior design and landscaping, is appropriate to the function of the project and will provide an attractive and comfortable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community. Appellant Concern: As expressed by the DRB during their work plan presentation to Council, vinyl framed windows are not a high quality attractive material and their texture does not support the historical context of the architecture. This architecturally inferior product should be replaced with a higher quality window that is more respectful of the classic look and texture of the historic building the architecture it aspires to echo. Staff Response: The Board found in its approval of this project that the aesthetic design of the project would provide an attractive and comfortable environment, in that the project provides for a high level of architectural interest, uses high quality materials and finishes and includes a diverse list of landscaping materials and plantings. Although, the Board is on record for generally discouraging the use of vinyl windows, in this ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 case they noted that this is a relatively small project and were sensitive to the comments by the applicant that cost of other types of windows would be problematic when added to all the other costs associated with this project. The Board did add three additional conditions to the approval to ensure the appearance of the windows would provide a high level of architectural interest. Specifically: 1.I The type of windows along the ground elevation shall be specified in the plan set as either casement or slider windows. 1.J All windows on the new building shall not contain false muttons and shall use dark bronze vinyl framing. 1.K There shall be no bars on the ground floor windows. It is within the purview of the Board to allow vinyl framed windows on a case by case basis. It should also be noted that the issue of vinyl windows only applies to the new building. The historic structure is required to have wood frame windows as existed in its original construction. Issue 5 Relevant Required Findings of Fact Finding 4c B.3 states that the project has been designed with consideration of neighboring development. Appellant Concern: 1. Perimeter tree plantings are meant to buffer the impact of the imposing structure on neighbors, however the tight space available to these trees and the large species, will result in significant canopy overhang on neighboring properties (as pictured in the plan set). This is a different impact that may or may not be desirable. It is not clear that it is considerate of the neighbors to impose this condition without consultation. There is a potential burden of shading, pruning, leaf drop, etc, that might not be sought by the neighbors. (Although the appellants noted that the Board addressed this concern, the appellants expressed concern as to how the modification would be implemented.) 2. The height of the (new) structure is not considerate of the neighboring residents and it is out of character with the neighborhood and the scale of surrounding buildings. 3. The shading of neighboring buildings to the north (by the new structure) is not considerate of the neighborhood. Staff Response: The Board found that the project had been designed with extensive buffer style landscaping that will visually screen the project site from adjoining neighbors. The project will also be open for the neighbors to use whenever the historic structure is open, offering access to the site amenities and closer access to the rock lined channel. In addition, specifically regarding point 1, the issue of the canopy size of the proposed perimeter trees was identified by the Board as a concern. They responded by adding condition of approval 1.C. that required the removal of the specified species of perimeter tree and the addition of a more columnar shaped tree that will create a narrower canopy. This is one of the many modifications that the Board required the applicant to address by submitting a revised set of plans prior to the submittal of building plans. They noted to the applicant that they have charged staff with the review of the revised plans to ensure that all noted modifications have been made as the Board requested. This requirement is stated in body of condition of approval #1 of the conditions of approval added by the Board and noted in Attachment 3. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 Points 2 & 3 are issues related to the height of the proposed new building. As stated earlier in the report, the height of the buildings is not part of the purview of this project. Staff references points 2 and 3 to make clear that the issues were noted as part of the appeal document. Issue 6 Relevant Required Findings of Fact Finding 4d B.4. states that the project contributes to the creation of an attractive and visually interesting built environment that includes well-articulated structures that present varied building facades, rooflines, and building heights and encourages increased pedestrian activity and transit use. Appellant Concern: 1. The discontinuity of the scale of the two buildings on the site is not complimentary. 2. The distance for a pedestrian on sidewalks to the central entrance of Del Norte BART is about 1800 feet away from the site and the closest point on San Pablo Avenue is about 1300 feet away. (neither is 700 feet, as claimed, not even as the crow files to the nearest point). Staff Response: Staff notes that neither of these points fall under the purview of the final design review purview of the project. Point 1 is again challenging discontinuity of the height of the existing and proposed buildings proposed for the site. The building height of the historic building is already established on site. The height of the proposed building was approved in the Planned Development District by City Council on August 19, 2014. Point 2 is taking exception to a measurement offered by staff. Staff stands by the measurement as the crow flies. This measurement was taken using the City GIS system. Staff references these points to make clear that the issues were noted as part of the appeal report. Issue 7 Relevant Required Findings of Fact Finding 4f B.6. states that the proposed design is compatible with the historical or visual character of any area recognized by the City as having such character. Appellant Concern: While the historic house is retained, its historic character, and particularly that of the historic site context called out in both the Corbett (2006) and VerPlank (2013) historical evaluations, is severely diminished by the crowding of the house in to the rear corner of the property and dwarfing it by a much larger adjacent building. This design destroys the historic context of the site and diminishes the third oldest house in El Cerrito, relegating it a much less interesting and valuable structure as a result of this mistreatment. Staff Response: The Board found that the project retains two existing historical resources, the historic structure and the rock lined channel. The design of the new structure and the landscaping proposed complements and supports those historic resources on the site through architecture and plantings. The location of the historic structure was part of the Planned Development District, approved by City Council on August 19, 2014. The architectural features of the new building were designed to complement the architecture ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 of the existing structure. The horizontal siding, the shape of the roof form and the color palette of the new building were all chosen in consideration of this goal. Issue 8 Relevant Required Findings of Fact Finding 4g B.7. states that the aesthetic design preserves significant public views and vistas from public streets and open spaces and enhances them by providing areas for pedestrian activity. Appellant Concern: Neighbors’ view of the East Bay hills will be impacted. This is a significant view shed. The site itself is open space and the view of it is enjoyed by the neighbors and those who pass Elm St. One neighbor who lives in an adjacent apartment reported that his only natural view from his balcony (an open view of the night sky to the hills) will be eclipsed by the tall new construction. Staff Response: The project will provide for a public view of the structure, the private open space directly in front of the structure and the rock lined channel from the right of way on Elm Street. It will enhance pedestrian activity by adding public access to these amenities as well. The goal of this finding is not to protect views from private property. It is to protect significant views as defined in the General Plan, from public streets and public open spaces. The east bay hills are significant, but their view from neighboring rights of way and public open space will not be impacted by the project. Further, because this project’s site plan and building heights were all finalized by the Planned Development District approval by City Council, this concern is beyond the purview of the final design review. Issue 9 Relevant Required Findings of Fact Finding 4i B. 9 states that the project has been designed to be energy efficient including, but not limited to, landscape design and green or eco-friendly design and materials. Appellant Concern: Shade from trees is not necessarily energy efficient in this climate. Natural ventilation can supply most cooling needs. The energy provided by passive solar gain to offset heating energy is a greater energy service to buildings in our climate and this requires no shading on windows in the winter when sun angles are low. Staff Response: The Board found that the proposed landscape is suitable for the type of project and provides an extensive plant palette that has many drought tolerant species listed. It also provides for quality open spaces, visual buffers and plants specifically valued for their bio-retention qualities. As conditioned by the Board, the project has been found to be an acceptable mix of plants that will serve the many goals of landscaping on residential properties in high density areas. Trees that provide shade are a necessary component of screening adjacent uses to allow for some privacy between residents. Staff also notes that the building will be required to meet the current California Building Code’s Energy Standards. Issue 10 Relevant Required Findings of Fact Finding 4j B.10 states that the project design protects and integrates natural features including creeks, open space, significant vegetation, and geologic features. Projects along the Ohlone Greenway shall ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 enhance the usability and aesthetic appeal of the Greenway by integrating it into the fabric of the City through building designs that include entries, yards, patios, and windows that open onto and face the Ohlone Greenway. Appellant Concern: The project does not in fact protect or restore the creek channel in a meaningful way. It leaves most of the creek channel untouched, however, this is not necessarily a good thing given the degraded condition of the stream and the proposal to introduce more peak storm water runoff and structure 4 feet from the bank. Hardscape sidewalks are located immediately adjacent to the bank and are an unacceptable imposition on the integrity of the waterway. The cable guard rails also marginalize and “wall off” the creek feature as an inconvenience to be dealt with rather than a unique and valuable feature that should be celebrated and enhanced to make the space more livable. The technical storm water aspects or the plan are of serious concern and need further review. The Regional Water Quality Board Permit has not yet been issued and they have expressed concerns about the plan it it’s current state. Staff Response: The Board found that the project design protects and integrates the existing rock lined channel that transects the site. Plantings are included that will benefit both this resource and provide for a rich palate in the open space areas throughout the project. The plantings near the rock lined channel and in the bio- retention area have been purposely selected to be both aesthetically pleasing and serve to have a positive impact on the habitat of the site. The cable guard rail has been added to prevent people from falling into the rock lined channel. The cables themselves are very thin and will create a minimal visual screening of the amenity. The City of El Cerrito has approved the C3 plans for this project. And, finally, the City of El Cerrito must process applications in a timely manner, once they are submitted to the city. The risk of submitting this project before the final action of the Regional Water Quality Board (RWQB) falls on the applicant. If the RWQB acts in a way that would require the applicant to amend the site plan, the costs of the modification would fall to the applicant, not the city. Issue 11 Relevant Required Findings of Fact Finding 6 states (the project is consistent with) any other relevant policies or regulations of the City. Appellant Concern: The project is not compliant with all the zoning and standards; it was explicitly relieved from some of them to be made possible as proposed. It is within your purview to assess whether the associated design impacts are acceptable. Staff Response: The Board found that the project is in compliance with the zoning requirements and the goals and policies outlined in the General Plan. As previously noted, this point was addressed in the approval of the Planned Development District by the City Council on August 19, 2014. With that approval in place, the project is consistent with the standards and requirements of the zoning ordinance. IV. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been approved for this project at the City Council meeting of August 19, ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 2014. All potential impacts identified are reduced to a less than significant level pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act with the implementation of mitigation measures. VI. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission affirm the decision of the Design Review Board, approve the project and adopt Resolution 15-02. Proposed Motion: Move adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 15-02 upholding the decision of the Design Review Board and approve the project located at 1715 Elm Street. Alternative Motions: 1. Move to overturn the decision of the Board and uphold the appeal and deny the design review for the project located at 1715 Elm Street. (If this motion is selected, please assist staff to identify the findings created by the Planning Commission for the action). 2. Move to remand the project located at 1715 Elm Street back to the Design Review Board for consideration. (If this motion is selected, please assist staff to identify the issues identified by the Planning Commission that they felt the Board should reconsider at their next hearing). Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution to upholding the decision of the Design Review Board and approve the project located at 1715 Elm Street. 2. Design Review Staff Report dated January 7, 2015. 3. Design Review Final Resolution dated January 7, 2015. 4. Draft Minutes the Design Review Board meeting of January 7, 2015. 5. Appeal Letter dated January 20, 2015. 6. Plan Set from Design Review Meeting of January 7, 2015. 7. Correspondence received subsequent to the preparation of the staff report. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION To request a meeting agenda in large print, Braille, or on cassette, or to request a sign language interpreter for the meeting, call Sean Moss, Staff Liaison at (510) 215-4330 (voice) at least FIVE WORKING DAYS NOTICE PRIOR TO THE MEETING to ensure availability. 10890 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, CA 94530 Tel: (510) 215-4330 E-mail: [EMAIL REDACTED] Community Development Department MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, March 18, 2015 El Cerrito City Hall Council Chambers 10890 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito This Meeting Place Is Wheelchair Accessible Roll Call - Chair: Andrea Lucas; Commissioners: Kevin Colin, Carla Hansen, Michael Iswalt, Bill Kuhlman, Lisa Motoyama and Tim Pine. 1. Council/Staff Liaison Announcements and Reports Councilmember Quinto reported on recent City Council matters including the Madera Property and Marin Clean Energy. 2. Comments from the Public BJ Thorsnes of 608 Everett Street asked if she would have an opportunity to speak regarding the 1715 Elm Street project. 3. Approval of Minutes Motion to approve the January 21, 2015 meeting minutes: Pine, 2nd : Kuhlman Vote: Ayes: Hansen, Iswalt, Kuhlman, Lucas, Motoyama, Pine Noes: None Abstain: Colin Absent: None 4. Commissioner Communication/Conflict of Interest Disclosure Chair Lucas disclosed that she attended a social event that included the appellants, but did not discuss the appeal and was not aware that the project was being appealed at that time. 5. Public Hearing - Appeal of Final Design Review for project located at 1715 Elm Street Application: PL14-0159 Appellants: Howdy Goudey and Robin Mitchell Location: 1715 Elm Street Attachment 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of El Cerrito Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Minutes 2 of 3 March 18, 2015 Zoning: RM (Multi-Family Residential) General Plan: High-Density Residential APN: 502-112-038 Request: Planning Commission consideration of an appeal of the Design Review Board’s approval of the design review for the project proposed for the subject property. CEQA: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been approved for this project. Development Services Manager Margaret presented the staff report and answered questions from the Commission. The public hearing was opened. The following members of the public addressed the Commission: BJ Thorsnes, 608 Everett St Ralph Boniello, 5701 El Dorado St Julia Lucia, Junction Ave Franklin Leong, Manor Circle Pam Austin, 834 Kearney St Sarah Taylor, Cutting Blvd Carl Campos, the project architect, addressed the Commission. The public hearing was closed. Motion to grant the appeal: Pine, 2nd: Motoyama Vote: Ayes: Motoyama, Pine Noes: Colin, Hansen, Iswalt, Kuhlman, Lucas Abstain: None Absent: None Motion to deny the appeal: Lucas, 2nd: Iswalt Vote: Ayes: Colin, Hansen, Iswalt, Lucas Noes: Kuhlman, Motoyama, Pine Abstain: None Absent: None 6. Public Hearing - 2015-2023 Housing Element Update Applicant: City of El Cerrito Location: Citywide APN: Citywide Request: Consideration of a Planning Commission recommendation to adopt the City of El Cerrito’s Housing Element update and Negative Declaration. CEQA: Negative Declaration Motion to recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration for the Housing Element: Kuhlman, 2nd : Hansen. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of El Cerrito Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Minutes 3 of 3 March 18, 2015 Vote: Ayes: Colin, Iswalt, Hansen, Kuhlman, Lucas, Motoyama, Pine Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Motion to recommend adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element: Motoyama, 2nd: Hansen Vote: Ayes: Colin, Iswalt, Hansen, Kuhlman, Lucas, Motoyama, Pine Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 7. Staff Communications Staff updated the Commission regarding upcoming agenda items and a public event at Summit K2 school. 8. Adjournment 10:50 p.m. ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 1 I 50 March 31, 2015 City of El Cerrito 10890 San Pablo Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 RE: Appeal of the March 18th Planning Commission decision regarding the 1715 Elm Street Project Dear City Council and Planning Division Staff, Please consider the following appeal of the March 18th 2015 Planning Commission decision regarding the final design review approval for the proposed development project at 1715 Elm Street. This cover letter reviews some of the history and context of the project. The formal appeal document follows, in addition to a number of reference documents as appendices. Background The March 18th 2015 meeting of the Planning Commission (PC) considered an appeal of the January 7th 2015 Design Review Board (DRB) approval of the final design review for the proposed project at 1715 Elm Street. The Planning Commission first voted 2-5 to uphold the appeal (motion failed). Their final vote was 4-3 to deny the appeal, with additional conditions of approval. This action, which is now being appealed to the City Council, as described in this appeal document, follows a history of meetings with substantial negative public comment regarding this project over the past year, summarized in the timeline below. Timeline of the 1715 Elm Project (reverse chronological order)  Mar. 18th 2015: Planning Commission consideration of 2nd appeal (of DRB final review). 5 speakers in favor of appeal, 116 signatures of support of the appeal delivered at the meeting. PC voted to deny 2nd appeal (4-3 vote), approving the final design review with conditions. Appealed to City Council (3rd appeal – subject of this letter).  Jan. 16th 2015: Second letter from the Regional Water Quality Control Board to the developer regarding a wider creek setback and other project improvements (Appendix  Jan. 7th 2015: DRB final design review approval (3-0 vote, 1 absent, 1 awaiting re- appointment). Appealed to Planning Commission (2nd appeal). Decision made without Water Quality Board and Army Corps approval, which could potentially require design changes.  Dec. 11th 2014: Moderately heavy storm reveals poor stormwater handling performance of the rock lined channel through the 1715 Elm site (Appendix 2)  Dec. 3rd 2014: Reply letters to from the developer’s representative Michael Wood, as well as the City Planning Division (Appendices 4 and 5) Attachment 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 2 I 50  Nov. 21st 2014: First letter from Regional Water Quality Control Board to the developer with questions and guidance for changes to the project with respect to the treatment of the creek (Appendix 6)  Aug. 19th 2014: City Council meeting – reviewed creek restoration study; denied appeal and entitled Planned Development (PD) without changes to the site plan relative to the creek (4-1 vote)  July 15th 2014: Fire abatement hearing, 1715 Elm on the list to receive a second and final letter to perform regarding public nuisance fire maintenance of weeds on the site.  June 23rd 2014: Continuation of the June City Council meeting – requested creek restoration study (3-2 vote)  June 2nd 2014: City Council meeting – first hearing of the appeal regarding Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Negative Declaration, along with the other project entitlements including Planned Development designation  May 21st 2014: Planning Commission – Planned Development / General Plan Amendment / Development agreement – recommended denial of all three entitlements (4-2 vote, 1 absent)  April 16th 2014: Planning Commission – EIR negative declaration and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval (4-2 vote, 1 absent) appealed to City Council (1st appeal)  Mar 19th 2014: Planning Commission study session, first introduction of the site plan that has not changed significantly from this version  Feb. 2014: Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) application filed (after inappropriate / unauthorized creek-side clearing work had already taken place)  Feb 2nd 2014: Over the previous days, the 1715 Elm site was cleared of trees and other vegetation with heavy equipment (tractor) used right up to the creek baring soil during the rainy season with no wattles to control erosion. (Appendix 17)  Nov. 6th 2013: DRB preliminary review. A few modest design changes were suggested that were implemented in the plan set presented at the March 2014 Planning Commission study session. Purview The decision being appealed has the purview associated with the DRB final design review, the scope of which is primarily an aesthetic architectural review of structures and landscaping applied to a number of stated findings and criteria. The following formal appeal document is therefore organized within that structure from the zoning ordinance. However, it is important to also reflect on the context of this purview in the larger process. Despite the aesthetic architectural focus of the scope, the DRB final review findings and criteria include rather broad language that substantially enlarges the scope. Some projects are only subject to DRB review. As a result, this process is given a fairly wide purview, including “catch-all” language like consistency with the zoning ordinance, General Plan and other regulations. This project has been through many layers of entitlement before the final design review, but it is still extremely important to embrace the entirety of the broad scope of the DRB findings, including an open- minded review of the previous entitlement decisions with respect to aesthetic implications, as well as new information that casts a different light on those decisions. For example, consistency ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 3 I 50 with the zoning ordinance means reviewing that the Planned Development designation was adequately founded. If that decision has negative aesthetic implications, or more seriously, compromises existing standards that protect environmental quality, infrastructure function and public safety, then the final design review cannot be approved without modification to the provisions of the Planned Development. It should not be taken for granted that past decisions stand without further thoughtful scrutiny that is explicitly enabled by zoning ordinance language of the final design review process. Developments since the last Council meeting on the topic, August 19th 2014 The Regional Water Quality Control Board which has not yet issued approval of this project, sent a letter dated Nov. 21st 2014 (Appendix 6) questioning the minimal creek setback and other aspects of the storm water plan and infrastructure. Reply letters from the developer as well as City staff were sent to the on Dec. 3rd 2014 (Appendices 4 and Despite the serious ongoing drought conditions, there was a moderately heavy storm on December 11th, 2014 that delivered several inches of rain in a steady fashion over about 24 hours. A video of the stream flow through 1715 Elm was taken on the morning of Dec. 11th after about 2 inches of rain had fallen. Use the following link to view the video: Additionally, there is an image of the creek through the Elm site and conditions in Appendix 2. The water level was less than a foot from the top of the bank under these conditions. This was not an extreme storm event, and definitely not a 10 year event. Regular events with more intensity can be expected. The stormwater handling performance during this storm demonstrates that there is marginal capacity on this drainage to handle typical heavy rainfall and that there is insufficient resilience to handle the inevitable partial clogging that will occur even on well-maintained drainages, let alone conditions of poor maintenance. On January 16th, 2015 the sent a follow-up letter (Appendix 3) to the developer’s response. The Water Board was not satisfied with the information provided and reiterated the recommendation to revise the plan with larger setback from the creek. Perhaps most shocking was the developer's announcement, at the March 18th 2015 Planning Commission meeting, that their solution to addressing the concerns was not to work with them to establish a better design, but rather to hire a lawyer to claim their application is approved by default because of the elapsed time since it was submitted, even though they received two letters within that time window requesting action that were not seriously engaged by the developer. This is not the action of a good development partner with the best interest of the community in mind. The current plan is reckless and irresponsible with regard to placing buildings exceedingly close (about 4 feet from the creek bank) to an old, improvised, non- engineered channelized creek with dry stacked rock banks. The buildings will be subject to flooding risk, as well as contribute to the challenges of storm water management along this already highly impaired water way with increased hardscape runoff from the site. We need a developer who responsibly addresses these issues, rather than hires a lawyer to evade critical work that needs to be done right to deliver a sound project. As Planning Commissioner Tim Pine ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 4 I 50 indicated at the March 18th 2015 appeal hearing, “I'm frustrated because it sounds like that if this thing goes forward it's simply a vestige (that) … the Regional Board is beleaguered … and that's not a good rationale for going forward with a project that's not going to serve the public, the environment, or any of those functions that having a creek would serve.” The responsible path forward It is clear that the maturity and momentum of this project fosters reluctance to revisit previous decisions and/or add significant new conditions of approval with impacts on the site plan. However, the neglect of the arguments demonstrating the need for significant design changes over the course of the review has not made the issues go away. And their implications will not go away over the decades this project will stand. There is a strong case that the project does not meet the standards in the purview of the final design review and that the Planned Development designation had insufficient grounds for its findings. As a result, the burden of proof for Council to justify approving the same design during this review is quite high and we expect a detailed, well-reasoned argument that supports that decision, if you choose to take that position. However, before you are tempted to rest on the assumption that the previous entitlements were adequately founded and the project design can proceed as is, please keep an open mind as you review this appeal and ask yourself if you are prepared to own the implications of your decision in the context of all the information presented. In the ten years preceding 1992, the City settled 13 liability claims associated with damage caused by inadequate stormwater infrastructure, at a total cost of $307,000. It is worth noting that this liability emerged as a result of aging infrastructure and a history of development that was insensitive to public infrastructure implications. Unfortunately, both of these factors are still present and are impacting the outcome of this project today. The problems experienced in the 1980's prompted the 1992 Storm Drain Master Plan study and a 6 million dollar bond investment (Measure J) to upgrade the most troubled sections of the drainage system. However, this effort only addressed half of the identified deficiencies, by cost, and far less than half by number. By the time of the 1999 Storm Drain Master Plan update, the bond money had upgraded a few of the highest priority deficiencies, but a long list of deficiencies remains to this day, including 4 points of the 1715 Elm site that do not have the capacity to handle the projected 10-year storm event (a violation of the County municipal code). The rock lined open channel through 1715 Elm is itself a highly questionable facility, built by amateurs with no engineering design. This improvised, channelized creek likely does not have the capacity stated in the 1992 Plan and while it may have served its purpose for many years to date, in a low density, low hardscape context with lesser consequences in the event of a failure, it is not a sound practice to build four feet away from this old sub-standard facility and expect everything to be fine for decades to come. The people who will have to deal with future failures on this marginal channel are the owners of the new condominiums, their Home Owners Association, neighboring residents and the City Public Works. The developer will be conveniently out of the picture and likely indemnified from responsibility by the City’s approval of the project, as long as they built the project to the required specifications. This is why it is imperative for the City to uphold high standards that will ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 5 I 50 reliably serve the community, as opposed to letting a poor design with technical stormwater deficiencies proceed. Compromising these standards will impose unacceptable impacts on El Cerrito residents and opens the City to unnecessary liability, as it experienced in the 1980's. It is important to recognize that, as a result of this public discourse, the developer will be obligated to disclose the factual information presented in this appeal to all prospective buyers and the Home Owner's Association (HOA) entity overseeing the common areas of the condo units, including the full details of the known stormwater performance issues and deficiencies documented by the City, that the current plan is doing nothing to address. The HOA will have to assume the liability and maintenance of the channel, under a storm water management plan that is required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board as part of their approval process. This would not be a problem if the facility is thoughtfully designed and enhanced as a robust restored creek with adequate setback; however, it is unlikely that prospective buyers will want to buy into a condo development built exceedingly close to an underperforming legacy system that will be a liability and maintenance headache. There is a great deal of wisdom in the many City documents that place a high value on creek restoration and maintaining adequate setbacks to provide a vegetated riparian buffer between the creek and development. These are the modern creek stewardship practices that have been heartily embraced in our community standards and values, because we have seen the negative environmental and infrastructure implications of development that neglects that importance of appropriate watershed management. As exemplified by Councilmember Lyman's creek corridor sketch, there are many far superior options for integrating a high quality restored creek and riparian corridor with adequate setbacks into this site without unmanageable sacrifices to the housing development potential. Economic impact Although the majority of the site plan remains unchanged from the version introduced over a year ago, one significant concession transpired as a result of the May 21st 2014 vote by the Planning Commission to recommend denial of the planned development. The developer offered to donate the restored historic house to the City for the use by the public, sacrificing the proceeds from one of their potential condo units while still incurring the cost of moving and restoring the structure. Between these expenses and the deferred income from a sale, this donation probably amounts to roughly $500,000 of value, likely more. In testimony during earlier Planning Commission meetings, the developer insisted that the economics of the project wouldn’t work without all 15 units for sale, as initially proposed. The offer of this donation revealed that there was significantly more latitude in the economics of the project than initially admitted. More importantly, the house donation was offered without consideration as to whether this would be the most beneficial community amenity to improve the project. The cost of the creek restoration presented in the report to Council (Appendix 10) was similar to the value of the house donation. From the beginning, when this offer was introduced, it was pointed out (in public comment) that this was an opportunity to fund a better creek outcome on the site, by trading the value of the house donation for the increased creek setback and ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 6 I 50 restoration. One or two housing units in the historic house could be preserved and serve to offset any loss of units in the larger structure that would be required to support a wider creek corridor, but this alternative was never adequately studied or considered, even though the Planned Development findings expect there to be a consideration and comparison of alternatives before approving a Planned Development designation. The staff report discussing the PD suggested that the prevailing standards would have required sacrificing open space to parking. This does not justify the narrow creek set back, as the parking standard could have been relaxed independent of the creek setback. Also, there was never any discussion of utilizing dense parking solutions with flexible independent access such as pit lift, puzzle parking and pallet systems (Appendix 18). While mechanical parking systems add cost, they may be offset by the value introduced by more efficient use of space, freeing up more high value living space. Failings of Process This appeal is as much an appeal of the failure of the process to deliver an improved compromise design, as it is an appeal of the inadequate state of the design itself. Over the course of this project, there has been a surprising and unfortunate reluctance by the developer City Staff and City Council to incorporate the feedback from the public, the decision making bodies of the City of El Cerrito, and State regulators, to be more consistent with existing City standards and stated community values. The majority of the design is essentially unchanged from the version introduced to the Planning Commission Study Session on March 19th 2014. There has been a concerted effort by El Cerrito residents to improve the project by providing consistent feedback in 8 public meetings over the past year, but the design remains the same. The May 21st 2014 Planning Commission recommendation to City Council to deny the planned development designation, general plan amendment and development agreement entitlements for the project, sent a strong message that changes were needed, but the design remains the same. Council considered the opportunity for integrating creek restoration, and despite revealing some clearly superior options, the design remains the same. The Regional Water Quality Control Board recommended creek setback changes in two letters, and the design remains the same. The stormwater performance of the drainage has been demonstrated to be marginal. It is a risky proposition to build close to a drainage in this condition, inviting unnecessary liability, and yet the design remains the same. There has been a consistent failure to move the project in a more positive direction despite the efforts of many well intentioned participants. Furthermore, there has been an inadequate appreciation of the constraints introduced by the unique context of the site. The constraints don't prohibit development of the site, but they do mean that it must be done much more creatively and thoughtfully. All of the feedback on this project has been trying to help guide the project toward a superior outcome, but these efforts appear to meet nearly intractable resistance. The unique combination of historic and environmental community resources on this site do not have an equal anywhere else in El Cerrito. As a member of the public working to help make El Cerrito a better place, including new transit oriented development, but without unnecessarily sacrificing valuable community assets in the process, it is difficult to understand ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 7 I 50 the rigidity of the developer, staff and Council regarding the design of this project over the past year. There is no justification for this resistance and it has served to deliver an inferior project with a much longer process than if a cooperative effort to improve the design had been facilitated early on. Despite the rigidity of the design aspects with the most significant negative impacts, it is worth acknowledging that the DRB and Planning Commission both added some modest conditions for approval which are mostly positive, although not nearly sufficient to improve the project to adequately meet standards. This is mentioned because in the event Council votes to uphold the appeal or place additional conditions of approval, it would be worth reviewing and considering the thought that went into the preceding conditions of approval in that review effort. Conclusion As you are well aware, development decisions have longstanding impacts. Despite the past year of review and public hearings, it is worth stepping back to make sure the process has resulted in an appropriate project for this site. Final design review is not just an opportunity to tweak a few finish details. It is the last opportunity for the design intentions and values of the community to be assured for a development project that might stand for 50 to 100 years, or more. Final design review should be open to asking the question “did we get this one right?” Three public appeals, a recommendation to deny the project from the Planning Commission, inconsistency with many City and County creek stewardship documents, significant stormwater infrastructure deficiencies, and unresolved design concerns introduced by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, combine into a strident indicator that significant revision and improvement to this design is still needed. It should not be accepted, as is, with essentially the same site plan submitted a year ago, before all the aforementioned community and regulatory input. Do we want an El Cerrito that unnecessarily sacrifices unique and valuable community resources, accepts inferior infrastructure with the associated liability, and doesn’t respond to earnest efforts to improve the outcome, or do we want an open and flexible process that resolves issues and facilitates meaningful compromise and the best outcome for all concerned? Some might satisfy their discomfort with a less than ideal outcome by pointing to the inevitable sacrifices associated with a compromise solution. Compromise does leave something to be desired on all sides, but the design before you should not be considered a compromise solution. It is essentially what the developer introduced in the beginning of the process. There was no compromise toward the resolution of concerns voiced by the public, as well as the contradictions with the standards in the City’s creek ordinance, technical stormwater deficiencies, and the Water Board feedback. The developer would rather spend money on a lawyer to escape from the obligation to work with the on design improvement. This is not development in the community interest and the City should strongly oppose this evasive tactic. The City of El Cerrito knows very well the experience of many underfunded, understaffed public agencies. Do we want to encourage the behavior of taking a legal shortcut around an important state regulator, or do we want to encourage, even facilitate, the developer to work ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 8 I 50 with the toward a better design solution for the site, as most of their applicants do, independent of the time it takes. It can be tempting to rationalize a less than desirable outcome with a sentiment along the lines of “we might not have achieved a great solution this time, but we learned some lessons for next time.” However, there is no “next time” for his unique site. There is no other site in El Cerrito with this combination of valuable characteristics. It stands as the last remaining example of a turn a of the century farmstead, including a creek that is not excessively constrained by the built environment, in the denser portion of the city. These are resources to be celebrated, protected and enhanced, not dismissed and inappropriately imposed upon with a dense development that is better suited for a site without this unique context. It is possible to simultaneously achieve new housing and environmental stewardship, along with superior aesthetic design for high quality livability, but this design falls far short on all these goals. Please do not succumb to the momentum to proceed, and resign to the sentiment that the current plan is “good enough.” The El Cerrito Strategic Plan inspires its voting officials to be responsive by seeking and utilizing community input, to always keep the public’s interest in mind, to have the courage to say no, and be willing to admit failures and faults. Please keep your mind open to these guiding values as you consider the arguments of this appeal. It is imperative to speak out when a decision does not live up to the standards and values of the community, even if it is inconvenient. We hope you take this opportunity to exercise the values of the Strategic Plan and vigorously defend the intentions and standards of all our guiding City documents. This unique site deserves better. El Cerrito deserves better. The future quality of life of El Cerritans for years to come depends on your actions regarding this design. Sincerely, Howdy Goudey and Robin Mitchell 635 Elm St. El Cerrito, CA 94530 ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 9 I 50 An appeal of the March 18th 2015 decision of the Planning Commission approving the final design review for the proposed project at 1715 Elm Street It is important to begin with consideration of the purview of the Design Review Board (DRB) decision that was appealed to the Planning Commission and now to City Council. The DRB final design review scope, findings and criteria to be applied to this decision are provided in their entirety in Appendix 1 of this appeal document (ECMC 19.38.040 and 19.38.060). Selected relevant sections are presented below with each associated appeal argument. Scope of Final Design Review (19.38.040): To paraphrase the relevant sections, the scope of final design review is the aesthetic architectural review applied to structures and landscaping, including character defining features and the relation to existing settings (19.38.040-C) and the location and type of landscaping including selection and size of plant materials and design of hardscape (19.38.040-E). This is the definition of scope that should be kept in mind when considering the following design review findings and criteria from section 19.38.060 Final Design Review Findings (19.38.060) The Design Review Board may only approve a final design review application if it finds it to be consistent with the following: A1. The applicable standards and requirements of this Zoning Ordinance The project is not compliant with all the zoning ordinance standards. It utilizes an exceptional element of the zoning ordinance, the Planned Development or PD, to be relieved from some standards, including the creek protection overlay district setback. As a result of the Aug. 19th 2014 Council action creating the PD, it can be argued that, from the perspective of the DRB final review, the project was made consistent with the zoning ordinance. However, this finding still requires examination of the consistency with the standards of the zoning ordinance used to entitle the project, at least within the scope of design review described in 19.38.040. During the March 18th 2015 Planning Commission meeting, staff instructed the commissioners that they could not consider changing elements of the design entitled by the PD, such as the setback of the buildings from the creek. I encourage you to consider the language in 19.38.040 and 19.38.060 yourselves and reflect on what you are being asked to review. To ensure the best project outcome, it is important to maintain an open mind that there is still an opportunity to revisit the setbacks established with the PD designation. To my reading, it is clearly within the DRB purview to evaluate how the implementation of the zoning ordinance, including the PD designation, impacts aesthetic design considerations, such as 19.38.040-C and 19.38.040-E. It is unnecessarily restrictive to consider the PD set in stone at this point, it is detrimental to the process of seeking the best community outcome, and may even be opening the City to unwanted liability. ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 10 I 50 The PD approval last August never had aesthetic findings applied to it, thus the PD should not be considered a senior decision that overrides the DRB final design review function. There are several aspects of the project entitled by the PD that should be considered for their aesthetic implications under this finding, including the creek setback, proximity of hardscape and vegetation to the creek, height of the new 14-unit building, and the positioning of the historic house on the site in relation to the creek, property lines and new construction. The buildings are both proposed to be positioned 4 feet to the bank of the creek at the point of closest approach. The proximity of the creek to the buildings is simply aesthetically unattractive and diminishes the potential of the creek to be enhanced with meaningful riparian landscaping that better serves the aesthetics of integrating the creek and the buildings together on the site. Hardscape walking paths are placed directly adjacent to the creek leaving insufficient room for an adequately sized continuously planted riparian vegetation corridor along the creek. The height of the 14-unit building is imposing, inconsistent with surrounding structures and will unnecessarily diminish the prominence of the historic house and its relationship to the site. By positioning the historic house in the back corner of the lot, with a stature roughly half as high as the new 14-unit building a short distance away, the historic house will look like an accessory structure rather than a prominent historical structure and architectural feature. In addition to the negative aesthetic implications of the PD, the technical concerns over water quality, storm water infrastructure, flooding and ground stability issues associated with building so close to this non-engineered channel, are cause to reconsider consistency with PD findings 19.14.040B.2.d, provision of infrastructure improvements, and 19.40.040.D.1.b regarding detriment to public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The marginal stormwater performance under a modest storm on Dec. 11th 2014 (Appendix revealed a deficient drainage system that will receive no improvements under this plan, despite being further stressed by the increased runoff from the new hardscape development. The 1992 Storm Drain Master Plan, and 1999 update (Appendix 14), reveal four segments of this drainage that fail to meet the 10-year capacity metric (violation of Contra Costa Municipal Code 914- 2.010.a.3). The channel through 1715 Elm itself likely does not have the stated capacity in the 1992 report, as a result of measurement differences from the 4'x4' open channel designation (see actual measurements in Appendix 15). The tight setback of the buildings to the creek needs to be reconsidered to achieve both an aesthetically harmonious arrangement as well as a technically function restored channel with the buffer capacity to robustly service the stormwater flows without endangering nearby buildings. It is particularly troubling that in areas of the current plan with less constraint, such as the patios and walks, there is still unnecessarily close imposition on the creek and the corridor that should be exploited with more robust riparian plantings to accentuate this unique existing natural feature and assure that it is technically sound and aesthetically integrated as a harmonious asset of the landscape design. The treatment of the creek in this plan is a technical and aesthetic disaster that does not thoughtfully embrace the unique onsite resources that are highly valued by the community with numerous strong standards in City documents. ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 11 I 50 Overall, this plan attempts to combine too much in too little space, as it fails to recognize the aesthetic constraints required by the inclusion of the historic house and the creek, as well as the technical infrastructure deficiencies and implications. The plan tries to maximize the 14-unit building footprint without respect to the impacts on the creek and the historic building and as a result fails to deliver an appropriate design solution for the site on both aesthetic and technical grounds. A2. The design policies of the General Plan and specific plans adopted by City Council. General Plan: The general plan contains multiple references to creek protection, restoration, adequate setbacks, and the importance of restoring riparian vegetation along creeks. The General Plan makes it clear that extreme care should be taken with development near creeks and historic elements, and that development should be considerate and consistent with neighboring site character. This project fails to meet all of the General Plan policies below. The August 19th 2014 staff report calls out a number of General plan references in support of the project, but a number of these are questionable to defend and they are outnumbered by the repeated emphasis in the General Plan on good creek stewardship and the other project deficiencies that have been outlined below.  Residential development must be done with care (pg 1.1)  Preservation and enhancement of creeks and historical features are a high priority (pg 1.1)  Green Infrastructure Initiative – Creek Restoration (pg 2.13) • Protect against flooding • Improve water quality • Restoring riparian vegetation  Protect environmental resources from impact of development (pg 3.5) • “The open drainage facilities provide extremely valuable riparian habitat that is increasingly limited”  New multi-family development supports, rather than detracts, from existing residential character (Goal LU 1.2, pg 4-14)  Preserve or restore natural drainage and vegetation on or near development (Policies, LU 6.1, pg 4-20) • “Creeks and drainages could make up a more significant part of the City’s visual and recreational environment”. (pg 4-28)  Neighborhood Character • Preserve character of neighborhoods by limiting new buildings that are out of scale and character with the surrounding uses. (Policies, CD 1.1, pg 4-31)  High Quality Design (Policies, CD 1.3, pg 4-31)  Landmarks Preservation – Historic significance (Policies, CD 1.5, pg 4-31)  Creek Preservation – preserve and restore (Policies, CD 3.5, pg 4-35) • Joint watershed goals statement (1995)  Compatibility in Building Scale (Policies, CD 4.1, pg 4-37) ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 12 I 50  Implementation Tools • Creek Restoration as storm water infrastructure improvement pg 4-58) • Design Guidelines to ensure development is compatible with surrounding area pg 4-58) • General Plan Consistency Review 13, pg. 4-59) • Joint Watershed Goals – restore creeks to natural conditions 18, pg. 4-60)  Resources and Hazards (Chapter 7) • Encourage growth where natural characteristics of land are most suited to such development (pg 7-3) • Creek Improvements (Goals, R1.8, pg 7-6) • Development near creeks – adequate setbacks (Goals, R1.9, pg 7-7) The August 19th 2014 staff report referenced the following sections of the general plan in support of the findings for the PD. However, the staff report did not delve into the details of how the consistency is being claimed under each broad heading, and there are numerous inconsistencies, if the details of the text are considered, such as in the creek preservation section elaborated above. Land Use 1.2: Multifamily Neighborhoods Land Use, 1.3: Quality of Development Land Use 1.5: Suitable Housing Land Use 1.6: Variety of Housing Types Land Use 5.1 BART Station Areas Community Design 1.3: High-Quality Design Community Design 1.9: Building Design Community Design 4.2: Building Articulation Community Design 5.1: Design Review Process Community Design 5.2 Planned Development Community Design 3.5 Creek Preservation Resources 1.9 Developments near Creeks Resources 2.1: Historic Preservation Resources 2.5: Public Awareness San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan: Although the project site is not in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan (SPASP) area and the application predates the adoption of that plan, it is relevant to consider the creek guidance presented in that document, The SPASP calls for observance of the creek protection overlay district and maintains the importance of wide, continually planted riparian corridors along creeks. This is significant because this is specified for an area with significantly higher allowed density than that of the 1715 Elm site. (see Appendix 11) A4. The design review criteria set forth in the following subsection. See comments on section B criteria below. ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 13 I 50 A6. Any other relevant policies or regulations of the City. Joint Watershed Goals Statement: The project is inconsistent with the 1995 Joint Watershed Goals statement (copy provided in Appendix 12), that calls for restoring creeks and riparian habitat, and embracing creeks as a valuable resource for people and wildlife alike, including creek-side greenways. There are also numerous inconsistencies with the elements of the strategic plan that is routinely called upon to support findings in project staff reports. I was unable to find any examples of Strategic Plan references used to support the August 19th 2014 decisions that entitled most of this project. However, when reviewing the strategic plan, there are many elements that are inconsistent with the proposed project, providing further indication that there is still a need for significant design changes. Strategic Plan: Both the Strategic Plan Vision and Mission statements highlight the City’s environmental focus and environmental sustainability values, sending a strong message about the environmental priority in the City. Goal F: Foster environmental sustainability citywide o Be a leader in setting policies and providing innovative programs that promote environmental sustainability. While the Creek Protection Overlay District, the Joint Watershed Goals statement and the creek language in the General Plan are strong leadership policies regarding creek stewardship, this development plan severely compromises the potential of those policies by knowingly retreating from them without sound reasoning, thus Goal F is not achieved. Goal D: Develop and rehabilitate public facilities as community focal points o Develop a plan to address ongoing and deferred maintenance of facilities and infrastructure. Leaving an old improvised channelized creek and encroaching upon it with tight setbacks, and no engineering analysis or modification, is reckless and neglects the City’s obligation to ensure high quality upgraded infrastructure facilities that incorporate the modern best practices (for an open channel like this, that would be a naturalized stream restoration with a riparian corridor). Goal E: Ensure the public’s health and safety While this goal mostly focuses on police and fire protection, it is important to recognize that there is also a significant element of public safety associated with the design, maintenance and implementation of city infrastructure including storm drains that are responsible for adequately handling water flows with high water quality and limited susceptibility to hazardous flooding and ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 14 I 50 structural stability implications for nearby buildings. As reported in the 1992 Storm Drain Master Plan (selected data in Appendix 14), stormwater infrastructure issues in the years preceding the plan led to numerous lawsuits against the City (13 cases settled for $307,000 in the ten years preceding the plan). It is irresponsible to neglect the important function of City infrastructure by inviting construction so close to an old improvised system with no engineering to support it. This careless action would be opening the City to unnecessary liability, especially because the documentation of issues presented in this appeal means the Council is aware of the issues at the time of decision making. Value: Responsiveness o Seeks and utilizes community input There has been a regrettable failure to utilize the significant community input to guide improvements to this project. Between 5 to 15 public speakers have consistently commented before the 8 public meetings over the last year, many letters submitted to Council and hundreds of signatures supporting the appeals have been presented. Although a few relatively small conditions of approval have made their way into the project, the August 19th 2014 approval of the project was essentially the same site plan as submitted for the start of this process a year ago. Value: Ethics and Integrity o Keeps the public’s interest always in mind o Has the courage to say no o Is willing to admit failures/faults As stated under the responsiveness section above, the public process regarding this development has not kept the public’s interest in mind as much as it has kept the developer’s interests in mind, despite a highly asymmetric level of communication advocating the two sides. The Strategic Plan guides decision makers to have the courage to say no. In this case that means the courage to say no to a developer who rigidly rejects adopting design modifications that will improve the project for all concerned. We are appealing to the Council to take to heart the Strategic Plan recommendation to willingly admit failures/faults. The Aug. 19th 2014 decision was flawed. It neglected to adhere to well documented community values and standards in order to achieve a mere 14 units of housing that would be more appropriately located on a site without the unique community assets constraining the 1715 Elm site. The decision is now even more questionable in light of information that has been presented since August (storm performance and Water Board letters). It is important to uphold the values of the Strategic Plan and remedy this failure while you still have the opportunity. It is unacceptable to retreat from the responsibility to assure the best outcome you can at this moment just because of an earlier flawed decision that you are reluctant to revise. The City Council is going to own this decision, and the implications going forward, for decades. It is imperative to have the utmost confidence that the highest standards have been applied to ensure the best outcome. The ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 15 I 50 current plan is not “good enough.” It is highly deficient and opens the City to liability if it is not improved. Contra Costa Clean Water Program: While not a City regulation in itself, the City is tasked with enforcing the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (C.3 standards). While this project does include a planted flow-through C. 3 facility, it does not include flow control which may be necessary, as suggested by the Water Board. Also, the following quote From the Stormwater C.3 update Feb. 2013 (see Appendix 13) indicates further support of creek restoration. General guidance for all projects: “preserve or restore open space, riparian areas, and wetlands as project amenities; minimize land disturbance and impervious surfaces (especially parking lots); cluster structures and pavements; include micro-detention in landscaped and other areas, and direct runoff to vegetated areas” Contra Costa County Municipal Code 914-14.006.a.1 calls for an open rock lined channel of the size passing through 1715 Elm to have at least 6 feet from the outside of rock to the nearest building or hardscape on one side and 12 feet on the other side (see also 74-6.010.a). The required capacity for a minor drainage facility (serving less than 1 square mile) is discussed in section 914-2.010.a.3, indicating a requirement to handle 10 year frequency peak events at a minimum. The 1992 El Cerrito Storm Drain Master Plan indicates that the 1715 Elm drainage segment meets a 10 year event (Appendix 14); however, this is based on the calculated capacity for a 4 foot x 4 foot open channel and not the actual dimensions which narrow at the bottom and have non-uniform rock and protruding vegetation. The bottom of the channel is 2 to 2.5 feet wide and it probably shouldn’t run any deeper than 3 feet (Appendix 15). Four points down stream of 1715 Elm do not meet the 10 year criteria. They were not improved by the time of the 1999 Drainage Master Plan update, as they remain listed among the 8 segments with deficiency points on this drainage (see Appendix 14). As observed during the Dec. 11th storm (Appendix the marginal capacity of this drainage can significantly back-up water with events less severe than the 10 year criteria. This system is likely to be susceptible to both on-site and down-stream flooding that is exacerbated by the stormwater impacts of the proposed 1715 Elm development. Does the PD allow granting relief from County regulations? Does City Council want to exercise a PD decision that contradicts County guidance in addition to City guidance? Final Design Review Criteria (19.38.060) All projects must satisfy the following for approval: B1. The aesthetic design, including its exterior design and landscaping, is appropriate to the function of the project and will provide an attractive and comfortable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community The buildings are too crowded next to the creek (as close as 4 feet) and hardscape walking paths and patios are placed directly adjacent to the creek, or nearby, leaving insufficient room for an adequately sized continuously planted riparian vegetation corridor along the creek to enhance the ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 16 I 50 creek as a fully integrated aesthetic feature of the site. Because egress paths are placed too close to the creek, the design includes tight cable guard rails with a hard modern texture that is aesthetically inconsistent with the natural water course and the historic farmstead character of the site. This treatment imposes unnecessary barriers dividing the site and breaking the aesthetic continuity, and creates an impediment to maintenance work. The plan attempts to squeeze too much into a tight space that does not honor the constraints on the site. Instead of celebrating the creek and historic home as valuable resources, the plan actively diminishes the aesthetic potential of both by marginalizing their presence and imposing barriers to the continuity and enhancement of these elements. The proposed built environment alterations will contribute to visual minimization, separation and exclusion of the creek rather than embracing and accentuating the special character of the creek as part of the landscaping plan. B3. The project has been designed with consideration of neighboring development. The height of the structure is not considerate of the neighboring residents and it is out of character with the neighborhood and the scale of surrounding buildings. The zoning is high density but as the “up to” language in the zoning ordinance suggests, maximum density is not a guarantee for every site. The appropriate design solution should be context sensitive including consideration of the onsite constraints and the neighborhood context. This site is on the border of the high density zone and the character rapidly transitions to lower density. Independent of the compelling on-site environmental and historic special consideration/constraints, this is a site that is appropriate for tapered, transitional density to maintain a harmonious neighborhood fabric toward the neighboring lower density zone, as well as to maintain a balance with the existing adjacent structures in the same zone. The concept of tapered density at zones edges was embraced by the Planning Commission during their May 21st 2014 deliberations, and it is also present in the desired urban design practices expressed in the new San Pablo Area Specific Plan. The unique existing features of the historic house and the open flowing creek also inherently limit the density potential of the site. An appropriate design would embrace this context and support these features to enable a harmonious integration into the existing neighborhood. Because the design tries to maximize the new building while begrudgingly “saving” the house and creek without appropriate aesthetic regard, the result is a crowded and unpleasing imposition on the neighborhood rather than the accentuation of a unique community asset. The shading of neighboring buildings to the north is not considerate of the neighborhood. Significant losses of daylight, passive solar gain heating and openness are imposed on the neighboring property, severely reducing the quality of the living experience in the neighboring building (see shading study examples in Appendix 19). In addition to being detrimental to quality of life factors of the neighbors, there are economic impacts imposed in the form of increased heating demand estimated to be about $140 annually, as well as an inability to exploit solar power generation (see passive solar energy calculation in Appendix 16). The perimeter tree plantings were intended to buffer the impact of the imposing structure on neighbors; however, the tight space available to these trees and the large species selected will ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 17 I 50 result in significant canopy overhang on neighboring properties (as pictured in the plan set). It is not considerate of the neighbors to impose this condition without consultation because of the potential burden of shading, pruning, leaf drop, etc, that might not be sought by the neighbors. This issue was addressed somewhat in the Jan 7th 2015 DRB conditions of approval, specifying more compact columnar shaped tree species to better fit the limited spaces and avoid dramatic overhang of the property line. The March 18th 2015 Planning commission conditions of approval further suggested consultation with neighbors about tree coordination, which is another improvement. However, it is worth noting that the plan and its visual impact on the neighborhood was pictured in all the documents reviewed by decision makers with very large perimeter trees that gave the appears of a lush green space screening the new construction from the adjacent properties. Unfortunately, it was unrealistic to accommodate the proposed trees in the limited space afforded to them. As a result there was a misleading indication of the degree of green buffer around the building. Presented with a realistic portrayal of the plantings that were suggested by DRB and the Planning Commission may very well be unsatisfying by comparison to what was unrealistically promised in the plan set submittals. No new visualizations have been provided to the public or decision makers regarding these changes. When considering the impacts on the neighbors and the appearance of the project, it is important to recognize that the green perimeter will not be realized as drawn. B4. The project contributes to the creation of an attractive and visually interesting built environment that includes well-articulated structures that present varied building facades, rooflines, and building heights and encourages increased pedestrian activity and transit use. The discontinuity of the scale of the two buildings on the site is not complimentary or attractive. The historic structure is disrespectfully diminished and relegated to back corner of the property. It is not being honored as a significant historical architectural asset for the pleasure of pedestrians and passers-by. According to Google maps walking directions, the distance for a pedestrian on sidewalks from the 1715 Elm site to the central entrance of Del Norte BART is about 1800 feet and the closest point on San Pablo Avenue is about 1300 feet away. The August 19th 2014 staff report quotes 1400 ft as the walking distance to BART. I have been unable to confirm the claim that either transit connection is as close as 700 feet, as the crow flies, which is the stated transit connectivity metric in the Jan 7th 2015 staff report and reaffirmed in the March 18th 2015 staff report. Clearly this is not a major discrepancy and it is certainly not a substantive element of the appeal; however, it is a misrepresentation to indicate distances to transit as short as 700 feet. The real pedestrian walking/biking distances should be the figure of merit reported. ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 18 I 50 B6. The proposed design is compatible with the historical or visual character of any area recognized by the City as having such character. While the historic house is retained on site (moved to the back corner of the lot), its historic character, and particularly that of the historic site context called out in both the Corbett (2006) and VerPlank (2013) historical evaluations, is severely diminished by the crowding of the house in the rear corner of the property and overshadowing it by a much larger adjacent building. This design destroys the historic context of the site and diminishes the third oldest house in El Cerrito, relegating it a much less interesting and valuable structure as a result of this mistreatment. Both historic assessments call out the unique remaining intact historical agricultural context of the site, characteristic of early El Cerrito, which doesn’t exist at any other site in the flat portion of the city. This character is inadequately treated with a few token fruit trees, when the rest of the landscaping has no continuity with, or respect of, this important historic character. B7. The aesthetic design preserves significant public views and vistas from public streets and open spaces and enhances them by providing areas for pedestrian activity. The site itself is open space with a creek that is a view enjoyed by the public from the side walk and traveling on Elm Street. Anecdotally, I first noticed the site as a passerby and I have always admired the site itself as a valuable view and community resource, for, although it has been run down and vacant for over ten years, the site speaks suggestively of the bucolic farmstead past of El Cerrito that has no equal anywhere else in the flat area of the city. B8. The proposed landscaping plan is suitable for the type of project and will improve the appearance of the community by enhancing the building, minimizing hardscape and softening walls; and the landscape plan incorporates plant materials that are drought-tolerant, will minimize water usage, and are compatible with El Cerrito's climate. While the project may exceed the required open space (mostly because the unbuildable creek area is included), it does not do a good job of thoughtfully locating hardscape with respect to the creek. Including roof and impermeable paths and patios, the total area of hardscape on the site is over 12,000 sq ft compared to the current hardscape which is under 2000 sq ft. There shouldn’t be any hardscape immediately adjacent to the creek and there should be at minimum a 10-15 foot continuously planted riparian corridor on either side of the creek with a minor exception for a single foot bridge crossing. The Planning Commission did include a condition of approval that reduced some of the sidewalk hardscape next to the creek, by relocating the entrance of one of the units in the new building. This is a help, but there is still too much hardscape near to the creek. One of the changes of resulting from the house donation, is a second hardscape foot path directly adjacent to the opposite side of the creek to provide accessibility to a lift at the rear of the house. This is another strong reason not to accept the house as a public space and rather work to increase the setbacks, remove the creekside hardscape and provide a meaningful riparian corridor instead. ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 19 I 50 B9. The project has been designed to be energy efficient including, but not limited to, landscape design and green or eco-friendly design and materials. The ecological treatment of the creek resource is not adequate to be considered green or eco- friendly landscape design. As has been pointed out with the numerous inconsistencies with City documents regarding creeks, the creek in this plan is far too marginalized in an insufficient riparian corridor, suffering from the encroachment of hardscape directly up to most of the bank. “Not touching” the existing state of the creek should not be confused with protection or preservation. Despite the reference to historic attributes of the stacked rock creek lining, sometimes the need to make sound environmental decisions trumps poor “historical” stewardship decisions in the past. The degraded creek channel actually needs restoration to fulfill its ecological potential and provide adequate storm water management services as a reliable portion of the city infrastructure. A portion of historical rock wall could be retained for the historical context, but the creek, the site, and the City would benefit from a meaningful restoration of the creek (or at least preservation of an adequate corridor of undeveloped space to accommodate future restoration). Most of our urban watersheds are heavily impacted by development. We should not take any development that proposes more of the same imposition. The norm, as stated in City documents, should be restoration (or at least preservation of restoration potential) of degraded creeks whenever possible. The Jan 7th 2015 DRB staff report called out shade trees as an energy efficiency feature, although this is not necessarily an energy efficient benefit in this climate. Rarely do El Cerrito homes air condition or even have air conditioning systems. Because of modest outdoor air temperatures, and large day/night air temperature swings, natural ventilation can supply most cooling needs. The energy provided by passive solar gain to offset heating energy is a greater energy service to buildings in our climate and this requires no shading on windows in the winter when sun angles are low. Trees provide other benefits including aesthetics, habitat and privacy, but it is a mistake to claim shade trees are an energy efficiency benefit in this climate. The DRB has repeatedly expressed (including their recent work plan presentation to Council) that vinyl framed windows are a lower grade building material with poor aesthetics and their texture does not support the historical context of the architecture. I expected the DRB to be more reluctant to accept the proposed vinyl framed windows proposed for the 14-unit building in this project. The conditions DRB added with respect to the windows included specification of a darker color vinyl frame material (bronze). It is worth noting that all vinyl frames expand and contract a great deal with temperature swings, but darker colored vinyl frames are even more prone to this problem. The repeated cyclical expansion and contraction may lead to premature air seal failure, durability and operability issues. This architecturally inferior vinyl framed window product should be replaced with a higher quality window that is more respectful of the classic look and texture of the historic building the architecture it aspires to echo. Vinyl framed windows do, of course, meet the energy code requirements. It is not mentioned in this section because of an energy efficiency concern. The vinyl window concerns actually pertain to more than one criteria, but it is listed here because vinyl itself is not considered a “green” building material. It has significant environmental impacts ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 20 I 50 associated with manufacture and it may have a lower performance in terms of lifetime durability and life cycle impacts. These last two points are not the highly significant factors motivating the appeal, but I include them for continuity, as they were mentioned in the previous appeal and they remain valid counter points to statements in staff reports for the decision being appealed. B10. The project design protects and integrates natural features including creeks, open space, significant vegetation, and geologic features. The project does not, in fact, protect or restore the creek channel in any way. It leaves most of the creek channel untouched, which is a serious problem in this case, given the degraded condition of the stream, the proposal to introduce more peak storm water runoff, and the encroachment of structures 4 feet from the bank on both sides. Hardscape sidewalks are located immediately adjacent to the bank and are an unacceptable imposition on the integrity of the waterway and the riparian corridor that should flank it. The cable guard rails also marginalize and “wall off” the creek feature as an inconvenience to be dealt with rather than a unique and valuable feature that should be celebrated and enhanced to make the space more livable. The 4 foot proximity of the buildings to the creek bank (especially a 40+ foot high building) breaks the aesthetic qualities of the creek, severely curtails the potential for developing riparian landscape character, and impairs the relationship of the buildings to the creek for a harmonious site design. Technical stormwater review: While it may seem that technical infrastructure matters are outside of the purview of the DRB, the B10 criteria includes language that the design should “protect” the creek. This is inherently more than an aesthetic criteria. Also, in reviewing consistency with the standards of the zoning ordinance, it is important to reflect on whether the PD was adequately founded. There are public safety and infrastructure findings for the PD, that in retrospect should be revisited. (19.40.040.D.1.b and 19.14.040B.2.d) The technical storm water aspects of the plan are of serious concern and need further review. The Regional Water Quality Board approval has not yet been issued and they have expressed concerns about the plan it its current state. With the many critical stormwater impact considerations associated with this project, these issues should not be left to the engineering review associated with the building permit, but rather explicitly addressed in the entitlement process and permitting though JARPA, etc. The earlier PD entitlement missed these public safety and infrastructure issues entirely, and these findings should not have been accepted and need to be remedied now. In order to achieve a robust stormwater solution, it will be important to consider flow control not just flow- through treatment (as mentioned in Water Board letter). The current design of the planted flow- through C.3 basins is dominated by direct downspout connections to a concrete planter basin. This system will provide very minimal opportunity for on-site infiltration and the storm water flow will have a large and immediate impact on creek flows. ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 21 I 50 The modest storm on Dec. 11th 2014 (Appendix revealed a deficient drainage system that is unimproved by this plan. New hardscape will increase runoff and further stress this marginal system. Putting buildings in close proximity to a deficient drainage system only exacerbates the flood risk and liability the City and home owners will face in the future. There are four drainage segments in the 1992 Storm Drain Master Plan, and 1999 update (Appendix 14), that do not have sufficient capacity to meet the 10-year flow capacity criteria. This is a violation of Contra Costa Municipal Code 914-2.010.a.3. The segment of open channel passing through the 1715 Elm site itself is unlikely to perform with the stated capacity in the 1992 report. There are actual measurements (see Appendix 15), that are not consistent with the reported dimensions of 4'x4' used in the capacity analysis. The plan still contains the error that the new headwall will transition to a 48” box culvert at the property line rather than a continuation of the rock lined channel with a wooden cover. There has been no formal plan offered by the developer to indicate how they will manage ongoing maintenance of the creek and proper operation of the storm water treatment facilities on site in the long run, which is required by the The HOA landscaping maintenance will likely fall to a gardening service that may have no expertise in riparian maintenance and water quality issues. These policies and procedures need to be detailed and accurately communicated to those performing work on site. The dry-stacked rock lined creek channel is inherently difficult to maintain with regard to interstitial vegetation. It is currently covered with ivy and other invasive weeds. A maintenance company without better guidance might resort to inappropriate herbicide and pesticide use around the creek, as well as introduce cut vegetation to the stream flow that could exacerbate clogging To reiterate, nothing about this plan actually serves the purpose of meaningful creek protection and integration. In fact, in its neglect and encroachment on the creek, the plan actively further degrades the water way and impairs the City's already marginal stormwater infrastructure on this drainage. The developer has openly stated that they chose to hire a lawyer to work around the Regional Water Quality Control Board rather than work with them to integrate sound design improvements to better improve the water way. Instead, their plan will further stress this infrastructure and invite more risk and liability for the residents and the City. This appeal has presented a broad and compelling set of arguments on many levels, but it is clear that this single finding (19.38.060.B.10) is enough to reject the proposed design on the grounds of improper treatment of the creek. It is not too late to remedy this oversight. Please use this review to open the discussion that will allow pursuing a superior design with wider creek setbacks. As suggested in the Water Board email (Appendix the bank to building setback should be at least 10-13 feet on each side, continuously planted with riparian vegetation and free of hardscape with a few minimal exceptions. Trading the house donation value should cover a great deal of the creek restoration, but this need not be paid for entirely by the developer. The City should explore supporting this work with external grants for creeks and storm water infrastructure. As long as the undeveloped corridor is part of the site plan, the completion of the restoration work can proceed in the future, separate from this development project, if need be. ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 22 I 50 Appendix 1 – Title 19 – Zoning. Part V – Administration, El Cerrito Municipal Code 19.38.040 - Scope of final design review. The Zoning Administrator or Design Review Board shall approve, conditionally approve or deny, or make recommendations on applications for final aesthetic architectural review based on consideration of the requirements of this Chapter as they apply to design of the structures, landscaping, lighting and other architectural features of an application including: A. Building articulation, facade treatment and architectural details. B. Exterior colors and materials. C. Character defining features and the relation to existing settings. D. Design of fences, walls, and screen plantings, including but not limited to height of those structures, materials, colors, and type. E. Location and type of landscaping including selection and size of plant materials and design of hardscape including landscape lighting. F. The size, location, design, color, number, lighting, and materials of signs. G. Design of the streetscape, including but not limited to landscaping, furniture and materials. 19.38.060 - Final design review findings and criteria. A. Findings for Approval. The Zoning Administrator or Design Review Board may only approve a final design review application if it finds that the application is consistent with the purposes of this Chapter and is consistent with: 1. The applicable standards and requirements of this Zoning Ordinance; 2. The design policies of the General Plan and specific plans adopted by City Council; 3. Any applicable design guidelines adopted by the City Council; 4. The design review criteria set forth in the following subsection; 5. Any planning or zoning approvals by the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator; 6. Any other relevant policies or regulations of the City. B. Design Review Criteria. When conducting design review, the Zoning Administrator and the Design Review Board shall be guided by whether the project satisfies all applicable criteria, the policies of the General Plan's Community Design Element, and by any other policies or guidelines that may be adopted by the City Council for this purpose. Criteria listed below are specific criteria that, if applicable, all projects must satisfy for approval. 1. The aesthetic design, including its exterior design and landscaping, is appropriate to the function of the project and will provide an attractive and comfortable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community. 2. Project details, colors, materials, and landscaping, are fully integrated with one another and used in a manner that is visually consistent with the proposed architectural design. ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 23 I 50 3. The project has been designed with consideration of neighboring development. 4. The project contributes to the creation of an attractive and visually interesting built environment that includes well-articulated structures that present varied building facades, rooflines, and building heights and encourages increased pedestrian activity and transit use. 5. Street frontages are attractive and interesting for pedestrians, address the street and provide for greater safety by allowing for surveillance of the street by people inside buildings and elsewhere. 6. The proposed design is compatible with the historical or visual character of any area recognized by the City as having such character. 7. The aesthetic design preserves significant public views and vistas from public streets and open spaces and enhances them by providing areas for pedestrian activity. 8. The proposed landscaping plan is suitable for the type of project and will improve the appearance of the community by enhancing the building, minimizing hardscape and softening walls; and the landscape plan incorporates plant materials that are drought- tolerant, will minimize water usage, and are compatible with El Cerrito's climate. 9. The project has been designed to be energy efficient including, but not limited to, landscape design and green or eco-friendly design and materials. 10. The project design protects and integrates natural features including creeks, open space, significant vegetation, and geologic features. Projects along the Ohlone Greenway shall enhance the usability and aesthetic appeal of the Greenway by integrating it into the fabric of the City through building designs that include entries, yards, patios, and windows that open onto and face the Ohlone Greenway. C. Final Design Review Conditions. In granting final design review approval for a project that meets all of the applicable standards and requirements of this Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Administrator or Design Review Board may impose final aesthetic architectural design conditions reasonably related to the application and deemed necessary to achieve the purposes of this Chapter. Therefore, such conditions may not overlap with, or impose more restrictive requirements than those provided for under Planning Commission land use authority pursuant to State law, the Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, and any other adopted plans, policies, permits or regulations. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this section shall not limit the powers of the Zoning Administrator or Design Review Board established by any other law. (Ord. 2008-2 Div. II (part), 2008.) ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 24 I 50 Title 19 – Zoning. Part III – Special District Regulations Chapter 19.14 – Planned Development District - PD Municipal Code adopted by El Cerrito, excerpted from the El Cerrito City website (3/16/2015) 19.14.040 - Required findings. A. Required Findings for a Planned Development District. A -PD district Zoning Amendment shall only be approved if all of the following findings are made: 1. The project meets all of the findings required for a zoning amendment pursuant to Chapter 19.40 2. Development within the proposed -PD district is demonstratively superior to the development that could occur under the standards applicable to the underlying base district as indicated by either the conceptual plans submitted as part of the Planned Development application or the project submitted for consideration of a Planned Development Permit. 3. The conceptual plans submitted with the application conform in all significant respects with the General Plan, and any applicable plan or policies adopted by the City Council. B. Required Findings for a Planned Development Use Permit. A Planned Development Use Permit shall only be approved if all of the following findings are made: 1. The project meets all of the findings required for a use permit pursuant to Section 19.34.040, including a finding that the project described in the application, or modified by any condition of approval and conforms in all significant respects with the General Plan, and any applicable plan or policies adopted by the City Council. 2. Development within the -PD district is demonstratively superior to the development that could occur under the standards applicable to the underlying base district, and will achieve superior community design, environmental preservation and/or substantial public benefit. In making this determination, the following factors shall be considered: a. Appropriateness of the use(s) at the proposed location. b. The mix of uses, housing types, and housing price levels. c. Provision of units affordable to persons and families of low and moderate income or to lower income households. d. Provision of infrastructure improvements. e. Provision of open space. f. Compatibility of uses within the development area. g. Quality of design, and adequacy of light and air to the interior spaces of the buildings. h. Overall contribution to the enhancement of neighborhood character and the environment of El Cerrito in the long term. i. Creativity in design and use of land. (Ord. 2008-2 Div. II (part), 2008.) ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 25 I 50 19.14.050 - Conditions of approval. In approving a Planned Development district, the Planning Commission or City Council may impose any deemed necessary to: A. Ensure that the proposal conforms in all significant respects with the El Cerrito General Plan and with any other applicable plans or policies that the City has adopted; B. Achieve the general purposes of this Zoning Ordinance; C. Achieve the findings for a Planned Development listed in Section 19.14.040; or D. Mitigate any potentially significant impacts identified as a result of review conducted in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. (Ord. 2008-2 Div. II (part), 2008.) Title 19 – Zoning. Part V – Special District Regulations Chapter 19.40 – Amendments to Zoning Map and Text Municipal Code adopted by El Cerrito, excerpted from the El Cerrito City website (3/16/2015) 19.40.040 - Review procedures. D. Findings for Zoning Map or Text Amendments. An amendment to the Zoning Map or Text may be approved only if all the following findings are made, as applicable to the type of amendment: 1. Findings required for all Zoning Map/Text amendments: a. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of all elements of the General Plan, and any applicable specific plan; b. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and c. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2. Additional finding for Zoning Text amendments: The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code. 3. Additional finding for Zoning Map amendments: The site is physically suitable (including absence of physical constraints, access, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and provision of utilities) for the requested zoning designations and anticipated land. (Ord. 2008-2 Div. II (part), 2008.) ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 26 I 50 Appendix 2– December 11th 2014 storm performance Thurs. Dec 11th, ~12:00pm (less than one foot from top of bank through 1715 Elm parcel) See video Thurs. Dec 11th, ~12:00pm, down stream from 1715 Elm at Ohlone Greenway (culvert entrance behind Safeway covered, not much more margin here before flooding) Dec. 15th, 2014 ~10:00am (still strong flow flowing some rain, but grate exposed, yellow line is approximately where the water line was on Dec 11th, as shown in previous photo) ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 27 I 50 Appendix 3 – Second correspondence from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (January 16, 2015) in reply to Michael Wood’s letter on behalf of the developer on Dec. 3, 2014 From: Hart, Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 1:50 PM To: Mike Wood Cc: Terry Bush Subject: RE: 1715 Elm Street Condominium Project Mike, Thank you for providing the additional information about the proposed project at 1715 Elm Street. We appreciate your providing the chronology of the steps the Applicant has been through on the project, which includes the review process with the City of El Cerrito. However, the response has not provided all of the information that we requested, such as a discussion of alternative ways to meet the project purpose by at a minimum providing for a greater setback from the top of the bank of the creek, and/or if feasible, considering a layout that would allow for future re-alignment and expansion of the channel along the lines of what was suggested in the concept plan put forth by RDG. With regard to the restoration concept, we do not agree that such work would fall into the lower end of rehabilitation for creeks. Although the reach is short relative to the entire watershed, it is important as one of the few areas where flow is conveyed in an open channel. The added water quality and habitat benefit, along with aesthetic and educational benefits would be significant. If creation of a meandering channel is not feasible for this project, then at a minimum the area adjacent to the existing channel should be preserved in a natural state without developed structures, including patio and walkway areas. We would like you to modify the site design to retain a minimum of approximately 10 to 13 feet on both sides of the channel (from the top of the bank, not the centerline of the channel) in a natural state. This distance is based on extending a 2:1 slope laterally from the toe of the vertical bank (resulting in an 8 foot distance), and increasing this by an additional 2 to 5 feet for added protection. It appears that there may be opportunities to modify some of the areas adjacent to the creek to afford a greater setback. These areas include the open turf and sidewalk rectangular structure proposed for the southeast corner of the property, the entrance walkway that extends into the center of the development to the north of the creek channel from Elm Street, and the paved surface walkway that continues along the north side of the creek towards the rear of the property. We understand that if the relocated historic house remains in the southwest corner, there would continue to be a very limited setback from the top of the bank along the northwest corner of the structure. An increased setback on the opposite side of the creek could accommodate for this encroachment into the setback area. We also understand that the walkways and patio areas are amenities for the project that you would like to include, but it is not acceptable for them to be located in such close proximity to the top of the bank of the creek. If you need to retain these features as part of the project, then you may need to consider modification of the eastern extension of the building to allow space for them and include the 10+ foot setback to the top of the creek bank. We note that the ground floor unit on the southwest corner of the building appears to be a 2 bedroom unit. Could this be modified to a 1 bedroom or studio unit? ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 28 I 50 Regarding stormwater management, we understand that the designs may have been revised, so we would like to review the changes that have been made. Also, we will need to verify the conditions of the channel of the project and suggest a site visit for that purpose. Based on photos that have been provided as part of the application, and other study of the area it appears that the channel of the site is also rock lined, and covered with a wooden walkway. This condition is different than that described in your email correspondence and in the application, and these conditions need to be considered when planning for stormwater management. I would be happy to meet with you and/or the project architect at the site to further discuss these issues. Sincerely, Katie Hart, P.E. Water Resource Control Engineer Watershed Protection Division San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (510) 622-2356 ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 29 I 50 Appendix 4 – Correspondence from the developer’s representative to the Regional Water Quality Control Board following letter from Katie Hart’s letter on Nov. 21, 2014 ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 30 I 50 ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 31 I 50 ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 32 I 50 ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 33 I 50 Appendix 5 – Correspondence from the City of El Cerrito to the Regional Water Quality Control Board following letter from Katie Hart’s letter on Nov. 21, 2014 From: Margaret Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 10:51 AM To: 'Hart, Cc: Melanie Mintz Subject: RE: 1715 Elm Street Proposed Condominium Development Hi Katie: Thank you for your interest in this project and its review by the City of El Cerrito. The project at 1715 Elm Street has undergone extensive public review and was ultimately approved by the El Cerrito City Council on August 19, 2014. It was the topic of over six public hearings, three at the Planning Commission level and three at the City Council level. It was also reviewed conceptually by the Design Review Board and is still pending review for Final Design Review and Subdivision Committee review. For your reference, the city webpage regarding the project is located here www.el-cerrito.org/1715Elm Among the entitlements required for the approval of the project, and I think specifically addressing your concern regarding the City’s consideration of its own Creek Ordinance is the use of the Planned Development District. In response, I am quoting from sections of the April 2014 Planning Commission staff report: “There are a number of aspects to the development that qualify it as a candidate for consideration as a Planned Development. First, the project is proposing to provide 14 new one and two bedroom dwelling units on a 0.42 acre site that is designated in the General Plan for high density. It also proposes to restore and relocate the existing historic single-family detached house on site to provide a fifteenth living unit and preserving an important historic resource. Finally, the project is proposing to keep the creek in place, thereby protecting the 115 foot long water course which is a tributary of the Baxter Creek and utilizing it as an amenity to the overall site. Pursuant to the Municipal Code: The specific purpose of the -PD Planned Development district is to provide for detailed review of development that warrants special review and deviations from the existing development standards. This district is also intended to provide opportunities for creative development approaches and standards that will achieve superior community design, environmental preservation and public benefit. When considering the approval of a Planned Development Use Permit and District, the city may allow deviation from the minimum lot area, yard requirements, building heights, other physical development standards, and land use and density requirements of other zoning districts. The project proponent is requesting relief from specific development standards of the RM zone in order to retain the site’s assets while accommodating a level of development that is consistent with the General Plan. This project shall require relief from the following standards: 1. Setback from property line for the relocated historic building. 2. Maximum height of the proposed new construction. 3. Setbacks from creek from both the relocated historic dwelling and the proposed new construction. Restrictions regarding a bridge over the creek. ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 34 I 50 4. Required parking for vehicles. While requiring relief from some development standards, it exceeds the RM zone requirements for both common area and private open space and allows for ten percent less lot coverage than could have been allowed in this district. One of the goals of the Creek Protection Overlay district is to preserve, enhance and restore natural drainage ways as parts of the storm drainage system, minimizing any alterations or structures within the natural stream channel and streambed. In support of that goal, the Creek Protection overlay (Chapter 19.14) prohibits placement of fill or any other obstruction and establishes a minimum 30- foot setback from the top of creek bank. The new construction is proposed to be 7 ft 8 in from the center line of the creek and the relocated historic building is proposed to be 5 ft 5 in away from the centerline. In addition, a footbridge is proposed to cross the channel to provide access to the shared common area. The project is proposing to maintain creek in its current location and ensure that it would not be filled or otherwise obstructed. Instead, it would be part of the common open space area of the development and would benefit from proposed adjacent riparian friendly landscaping. Although the project does not include the 30-foot setback from the channel pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 19.14, it is noted that in this case that the on-site surface water feature lacks characteristics of a natural riparian corridor and provides only marginal habitat value for wildlife that may include utilization by local birds and mammals, therefore the initial study concludes that there would be less than significant impacts to biological resources. Finally, it is only by granting relief from the setbacks, that the site can support the superior community design by accommodating the high density dwellings and the historic building’s retention and the benefit of the existing creek in its current location. As the review of the project progressed, the record shows that the City’s appointed and elected officials studied this project very carefully. In accordance with our General Plan and Climate Action Plan, the fact that this site is 700 feet from a BART station and designated as High Density in the General Plan was an important impetus to allowing the construction of transit-oriented, high-density housing. Equally important and also consistent with our General Plan; both of the existing site attributes, (the creek and the historic home) are held in high value. Please understand that all of this deliberation was completed at public hearings and members of the public were present to state each of their points of view. I am sure you know that as an urban in-fill city, we are always striving to balance multiple important goals. In the end, after reviewing all of the testimony, analysis, CEQA documents and additional creek studies; the City Council chose to approve a modified version of the project that is before you for your consideration. This action was taken with all appropriate legal and policy considerations in place. I am glad to assist you in resolving any additional questions you may have regarding the review of this project by the City of El Cerrito. ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 35 I 50 Appendix 6 – First letter from Regional Water Quality Control Board, November 21st 2014 From: Hart, To: Michael Wood Cc: Terry Bush; Bowyer, Dale@Waterboards Subject: 1715 Elm Street Condominium Project Date: Friday, November 21, 2014 3:40:00 PM Mike, This email is in follow-up to correspondence between you and the Water Board regarding the proposed condominium development project at 1715 Elm Street (Project) in El Cerrito. We recognize that the City of El Cerrito’s review of the subject project has moved forward, with several review steps remaining, and that you were not anticipating further comment from the Water Board on the proposed Project. However, it has come to our attention that the proposed development, including the relocated house, is situated within the creek setback limits established by the City of El Cerrito in their 2008 Creek Ordinance, and, that there may be a reasonable alternative for development that would provide for increased creek setback and an opportunity to enhance the degraded creek channel that will be vulnerable to deterioration in the future. We have received written comments and questions from a number of concerned citizens in the community regarding the creek set back issue, and also about opportunities to restore and enhance the creek corridor. In order for us to better understand these issues and appropriately respond to these concerns, we would like to inquire about site options that have been or could be explored. Although the Project itself does not involve a significant amount of creek fill, the surrounding development located immediately adjacent to the banks of the creek will prevent the natural evolution of the channel if/when the existing rock structures fail, and implementation of enhancement and restorative efforts that would improve water quality and riparian habitat in the stream reach. Although the current property owner/developer may not engage in creek enhancement and restoration efforts at this time, it would be most beneficial if the Project could be designed to allow for future creek restoration work to occur. As currently planned, there is no space available to allow for development of a more natural stream form with greater instream complexity and riparian habitat, or to address bank instability under the current conditions as the existing rock structures deteriorate over time. We have recently had the opportunity to review a report that we understand was prepared for the Project applicant for presentation at one of the City Council meetings. This report, 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, California, Channel Restoration Feasibility Analysis Memorandum (Restoration Design Group. LLC (RDG), July 25, 2014), provides some background information on the creek and watershed for development of conceptual designs for enhancement or restoration of the creek on ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 36 I 50 the site. This analysis indicates that the creek channel could be accommodated within a roughly 20 foot wide corridor that would pass through the development. In order for us to effectively respond to concerns expressed by the local community, the Water Board would like some additional information. In particular, we would like to know the basis for the City of El Cerrito’s decision to allow the current Project design that is not in conformance with the Creek Ordinance. Please also discuss variations that were, or could have been considered if the 30- foot to centerline and 15-foot to top of bank setback requirements made development on the parcel infeasible. Were alternative setbacks considered, such as a 10-foot setback from the top of the bank? Also, given that the RDG report indicated that the site could be developed with a roughly 20-foot corridor retained for a meandering creek (with retaining walls in some locations with minimal setbacks), why did the City of El Cerrito reject this option considering the water quality, riparian habitat, aesthetic, and educational benefits that could be realized as an amenity to the community? If a site designs that allow for the retention of a roughly 20-foot wide meandering creek restoration corridor similar to that described in the RDG report (or one similar with even greater creek setbacks and no retaining walls) are not feasible, then please explain in detail why they are not feasible. While we understand that development options on the site may be more limited if the City’s 30- foot setback from the centerline of the creek is to be honored, we suggest that at a minimum, site plans maintaining a 15-foot setback from the top of the bank be considered. Note that in order to preserve creek restoration opportunities, the Water Board would consider location of the stormwater treatment facilities within a 15-foot setback to be acceptable. In addition, please note that the Stormwater Management Plan for the Project will need to be revised to include the additional area required for hydromodification control. The creek immediately of the proposed headwall is also lined with vertically stacked rock, which may be representative of the conditions beyond this area where I understand the creek is covered with a wooden walkway, and any additional erosive forces need to be addressed. The fact that the overall site is less than one acre does not apply to this site where a 401 water quality certification is needed for development. Under the 401 program, we are required to certify that all water quality standards will be met, and minimizing the potential for erosion or incision is one of the issues that we have to address. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Katie Hart, P.E. Water Resource Control Engineer Watershed Protection Division San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (510) 622-2356 ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 37 I 50 Appendix 7 – Alternative alignment and approx. 20 foot riparian corridor proposed by Council member Lyman that was presented with the Council request (by three vote majority) for the study of the restoration potential of the creek through the 1715 Elm Property ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 38 I 50 Appendix 8 – Alternative site plan proposed in the creek restoration study conducted by Restoration Design Group at the request of City Council. Please see Agenda Item 6 (attachment 12) on page 219 in the August 19th Council Packet for the complete report. http://www.el-cerrito.org/Archive.aspx?ADID=1923 This report failed to consider opportunities with different building footprints, as had been suggested. Also the report understated the potential environmental value of a full creek restoration despite the clear inferiority of the currently proposed plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 39 I 50 Appendix 9 – Annotated (by appellants) version of the trade off matrix prepared for Council regarding the current plan versus a more complete creek restoration option (original matrix from the Aug. 19th Council meeting, agenda item 6, attachment 13, page 230) ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 40 I 50 Appendix 10 – Architect’s cost estimate of the creek restoration presented in the study. $415,000 is likely on par with the fiscal impact associated with the loss of a housing unit for sale when the developer offered to donated the historic house to the City rather than retain it as a housing unit. There has been no demonstrated user for, or interest in, the donated facility. This donation could be swapped for creek design improvements that have been called out in public testimony and would be more consistent with the City’s creek policies. There would also be grant opportunities that the City could help to raise funds for creek restoration. (from the Aug. 19th Council meeting (agenda item 6, attachment 14, page 231) ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 41 I 50 Appendix 11 – The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan calls out a design intention for creeks (in higher density transit oriented zoning than that of 1715 Elm) to include a wider continuous planted riparian corridor than is being proposed at 1715 Elm. While the area beyond the central 20-40 foot Swale and open space might not be relevant to this site, it is clear that the design intentions of the City even in highly dense transit oriented zoning is to provide adequate room around the creek to allow it to function properly and embrace it as a valuable site amenity. (1715 Elm is not in the Specific Plan area and the 1715 Elm application predates the adoption of this plan. Still, this is the design philosophy that the City has demonstrated in numerous documents, even in highly dense development areas.) “Open-air creeks are a public good. Development should strongly consider daylighting creeks where they are buried, enhancing or restoring creeks where feasible and integrating them into a project as a site amenity” (San Pablo Specific Plan Chapter 2.01) ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 42 I 50 Appendix 12 – Joint Watershed Goals statement, 1995 Joint Watershed Goals Statement The cities of Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito and Richmond, and the East Bay Regional Park District, and the University of California, Berkeley, agree to join in partnership to restore the watershed of our joint jurisdiction to a healthy condition. We will cooperate closely to accomplish the following goals:  Restoring our creeks by removing culverts, underground pipes, and obstructions to fish and animal migration, putting creeks in restore channels up in the sunshine where they can be enjoyed by people and wildlife.  Restoring creek corridors as natural transportation routes with pedestrian and bicycle paths along creekside greenways; wherever possible using creekside greenways to connect neighborhoods and commercial districts east of the Interstate 80 freeway to the shoreline of the San Francisco Bay and the San Francisco Bay Trail.  Restoring a healthy freshwater supply to creeks and the bay by eliminating conditions that pollute rainwater as it flows overland to creeks and eliminating conditions that prevent a healthy amount of rainwater from soaking into the ground and replenishing the underground water supplies that nourish creeks.  Instilling widespread public awareness of the value of developing infrastructure along lines that promote healthier watersheds and watershed oriented open spaces where nature and community life can flourish. In addition to ongoing general cooperation in the furtherance of these goals, the watershed partners agree to seek out opportunities to jointly apply for grants and jointly undertake planning, construction, educational, and watershed management projects which will be approved on a case by case basis by the respective governing bodies. The Joint Watershed Goals Statement was passed by the following cities on the following dates: City of Albany July 17, 1995 City of Berkeley July 25, 1995 City of El Cerrito September 5, 1995 City of Richmond July 31, 1995 ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 43 I 50 Appendix 13 – Contra Costa Cleanwater Program Stormwater C.3 Update 2/2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 44 I 50 ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 45 I 50 Appendix 14 – 1992 Storm Drain Master Plan (segment capacity analysis for the drainage through the 1715 Elm site) http://www.el-cerrito.org/index.aspx?nid=659 Referring to the 1999 update of the Storm Drain Master Plan, the summary for “deficient” segments down-stream of 1715 Elm is presented below. Three segments (marked have less than 10% under capacity for a 10 yr event and one (marked has a 35% under capacity for a 10 yr event. Seven segments (including the one directly from the 1715 Elm site) have reported deficiency ratings in the 1999 plan, but are far down the list in terms of priority. One of the segments (231), with a noted under capacity, appears to have disappeared from the list in 1999, although there is no evidence that it was improved. How healthy is this drainage to be robust to peak events under expected conditions with partial clogging, etc.? Is it wise to add additional runoff and place buildings close to the marginal facility? Contra Costa County Municipal Code section 914-2.010.a.3 requires 10-yr storm event capacity for a minor drainage facilities (serving less than 1 square mile). Many segments of the 1715 Elm site fail to meet this standard. drain # cap. (cfs) 10-yr (cfs) deficiency points 227 115.5 126.4 * 4 228 156.6 126.4 4 231 120.9 125.6 * disappeared from the list, but no evidence that work was done there 234 99.2 98.2 3 235 72.5 98.2 6 236 116.8 97.2 3 237 93.9 97.2 * 3 239 177.2 97.2 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 46 I 50 Appendix 15 – Measured dimension of channel through 1715 Elm St. site Storm drain segment 240, the channel through 1715 Elm St. is listed as a 4 foot x 4 foot "open" channel in the 1992 master plan. The photos show the very top of the bank to the bottom of the channel is roughly 4 feet. The interior width at the very top of the bank is also about 4 feet. However, the dimensions of the usable flow envelope are much smaller than 4 feet square. For instance, the bottom width of this channel is as small as 2 feet and rarely seemed to be wider than 2.5 feet. The width at the top of max flow (say about 3 foot water depth?) is closer to 3 feet than 4 feet wide. Should this channel capacity be calculated with 2.5' wide x 3' deep dimensions, or does the open channel designation automatically assume that the dimensions associated with max flow height and tapered banks will be smaller than the nominal dimensions at the top of bank? I have not yet received a clear explanation of the assumptions defining "open" channel characteristics for given nominal dimensions. It remains an open question whether the existing channel of these measured dimensions has a real world capacity found in the 1992 report? ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 47 I 50 Appendix 16 – Energy Cost implications for neighbor to the north based on lost passive solar gain, estimated using the RESFEN software ~ $140 annually ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 48 I 50 Appendix 17 – Unpermitted creek side site clearing preceding Feb. 2nd 2014 Before Clearing After Clearing Clearing up to creek and debris in creek, no erosion protection ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 49 I 50 Appendix 18 – Independent dense parking systems (any car is accessible anytime without the action of other drivers) Pit lift system gain more independent parking with modest excavation Puzzle parking (vertical and horizontal motion) more space efficient Pallet parking (density without lift, pits, or higher ceiling) ---PAGE BREAK--- P a g e 50 I 50 Appendix 19 – Shading impacts on north neighbor (Sketchup shading tool) Over 7 months with shade on windows 8am to 12pm (PST), 9/1 – 4/10 8am to 12pm (PST) nearly as bad over the same period, 11/4 – 2/8 Over 8 months of complete shade on windows at 10am (PST), 8/19 – 4/23 Over 3 months of complete shade (walls and roof) at 10am (PST), 11/4 – 2/8 ---PAGE BREAK--- OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10890 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, CA 94523-3034 Telephone (510) 215-4305 Fax (510) 215-4379 http://www.el-cerrito.org May 19, 2015 Regular City Council Meeting Agenda Item No. 6(A) Attachment 9 – Plan Set Submitted for the Design Review Meeting of January 7, 2015 can be viewed at: http://www.el-cerrito.org/DocumentCenter/View/4601 Hardcopies are available for review at: Office of the City Clerk and The El Cerrito Library 10890 San Pablo Avenue 6510 Stockton Avenue El Cerrito, CA El Cerrito, CA (510) 215-4305 ---PAGE BREAK--- OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10890 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, CA 94523-3034 Telephone (510) 215-4305 Fax (510) 215-4379 http://www.el-cerrito.org May 19, 2015 Regular City Council Meeting Agenda Item No. 6(A) Attachment 10 – Appellant Petition submitted 3-18-15 (re-submitted for 5-19-15 hearing) Hardcopies are available for review at: Office of the City Clerk and The El Cerrito Library 10890 San Pablo Avenue 6510 Stockton Avenue El Cerrito, CA El Cerrito, CA (510) 215-4305 ---PAGE BREAK--- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development 1 Aesthetic Considerations for Stream Restoration Stream restoration projects provide social, environmental, and economic benefits which account for the three pillars of landscape sustainability. Of these, EPA focuses on the environmental aspects including water quality protection and restoration. Anthropogenic activities exacerbate the problems encountered in stream restoration activities. In rural areas nutrients, sediments, and pesticide stream loadings result from agricultural use while urban expansion increases flash flooding and nonpoint pollutant loading (Allan, 2004; Palmer & Bernhardt, 2006). EPA is exploring the use of stream restoration for water quality protection to promote cooperation with local stakeholders, to encourage sustainable environmental management (RESTORE Partnership, 2013) and to ensure that social and economic considerations be incorporated in environmental planning (National Research Council, 2001; Eden & Tunstall, 2006). Although stream restoration projects may be based on sound science, strong social support is needed if the restoration projects are to be funded, implemented, and sustainably maintained (Kondolf & Yang, 2008). To this end, aesthetics are an integral component of the social and economic benefits of stream restoration and must be considered in stream restoration projects for sustainable management. Aesthetics in stream restoration Aesthetics is one of the frequently listed goals for stream restoration in the US (Bernhardt et al., 2005). Besides environmental benefits (in terms of water quality control, flood control, creation of habitat, and biodiversity increase), high quality restoration designs could create attractive aquatic environments and promote economic benefits associated with aesthetics, such as urban regeneration, business growth, and increased land and property values (RESTORE Partnership, 2013). This document introduces the aesthetic considerations for stream restoration. According to literature on landscape aesthetics, visual landscape indicators associated with stream systems (stream channel, riparian wetland or floodplain, and upland landscape) are categorized into three groups as shown in Table 1. Visual indicators with positive, negative, and mixed aesthetic effects are described and case studies illustrate the aesthetic considerations of several restoration projects. A: There could be exceptions: people in Oregon did not perceive in-channel woody debris negatively (Piegay et al., 2005). B: Trees generally contribute to aesthetics in a waterscape as long as they don’t block views. C: Designed wild systems, as imitations of natural systems, could provide natural aesthetics. They can be visually pleasing when appropriately designed and managed. The purpose of this document is to provide information needed to encourage and incorporate aesthetic thinking into stream restoration projects for sustainable management of stream systems. It should be noted that there is no “universal” aesthetic preference to guide restoration designs. The visual indicators presented here are not universally applicable. Each restoration site has its particular site environmental and social conditions that could influence aesthetics. It should also be noted that aesthetic and environmental benefits could not always be aligned in stream restorations. A visually appealing stream landscape might not be an ecologically healthy ecosystem. Based on information provided, project designers could involve the public in design charrettes and survey local opinions to develop designs that meet optimized aesthetics and environmental restoration objectives. Openness and open water view. People have a general preference for open views in landscapes (Nassauer, 1989; Rogge, Nevens, & Gulinck, 2007) and open water views are desired (Nassauer, 2004). River view was among the most frequently mentioned benefits provided by a stream, in a study on the Chicago River Corridor (Gobster & Westphal, 2004). Figures 1A and B show a stream restoration project with open water views. Designed for aesthetic and habitat value, the stream has a meandering course with sloped (4:1) vegetated banks. Nearly 300,000 Table 1. Landscape visual indicators associated with stream systems Positive aesthetic effects Negative aesthetic effects Mixed aesthetic effects Openness and open water Water clarity Water movement Curved or meandering shape Desirable wildlife (e g. birds) Colorful plants In-channel debris A Reduced proportion of water in channel Signs of erosion Undesirable plants Man-made features Water flow and area Trees B Wild systems C EPA/600/F-14/300 Attachment 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development 2 plants (including more than 640 trees) were planted to control erosion, soften the hard urban landscapes, buffer noise, cool the water, and enhance wildlife habitat. The improved aesthetics and connectivity for park users could potentially lead to economic benefits. The regional employment increased after project completion during 2008-2012 and there was a four-fold increase (54 to 236) in the number of establishments and a five-fold increase ($10,467,000 to $57,281,000) in total retail sales (Ozdil, Modi, Stewart, & Dolejs, 2013). It should be noted that these changes might not be attributed specifically to the stream restoration project, other factors could be involved. A B Figure 1. Buffalo Bayou Promenade, Houston, Texas. A) Birdseye view of the site (shows openness and a bridge to increase connectivity); B) Stream riparian area allows water view. Permission from SWA Group. Water clarity and color. Water clarity and color influence the attractiveness of a waterscape (Gregory & Davis, 1993; Pfluger, Rackham, & Larned, 2010). There is a preference for clear water rather than brown water. Suspended solids, phytoplankton, or substances dissolved in the water could be among factors that influence water clarity. Water clarity and color could indicate tidiness to layman and are often used as indicators of the perceived environmental health (Cottet, Piegay, & Bornette, 2013). Water movement. People prefer rushing waters than stagnant creeks (Herzog, 1985). Movement (caused by gravity, wind, or both) is an exciting visual aspect of water that contributes to the vividness of a landscape setting. Gravity is the primary factor influencing water movement in streams, which is described as disturbed water surfaces (falling and turbulent) and undisturbed surfaces in a stream channel. Visually desirable water settings could be achieved by creating a mix of disturbed and undisturbed water flow, as shown in Figure 2 (Litton & Tetlow, 1974). Figure 2. Flow control structures in large rivers provide a more dynamic appeal to the water flow, Uncompahgre River, CO (Rosgen, 2007). Permission from Wildland Hydrology. Curved, meandering shape. Streams with meandering shapes improve the scenic quality of a landscape (Nassauer, 1989). The meandering channel is a more organic, natural shape that is more aesthetically appealing. The preference for serpentine lines was recognized in the 18th century and this preference was shown in serpentine channels on the English estates designed by a popular 18th century landscape designer, Capability Brown (Kondolf & Yang, 2008). Figure 3A and B show restored streams with meandering channel. A B Figure 3. Boneyard Creek Restoration, Champaign, Illinois. A) Stream meander restored; B) Stream meander and riparian flowerings. Permission from Hitchcock Design Group. Photo source: A: Rob Kowalski with the City of Champaign; B: Hitchcock Design Group. Desirable wildlife. The presence of desirable wildlife, such as birds, turtles, and butterflies, could enhance visual appeal of a shoreline landscape. The bird species richness indicates habitat value of wetlands. It is positively associated with the attractiveness of wetland landscapes (Hu, 2013; Nassauer, 2004). Plant color and form. Restored wetlands with flowering plants were perceived as more attractive than ones that aimed to achieve enhanced ecological value only (Nassauer, 2004). Techniques for making a vegetated landscape colorful include selecting plants with showy leaf or flower colors in different seasons, using evergreen species for winter look, and installing a diversity of plant species. Together with other plant characteristics such as size (low height), texture (medium to coarse), and form (clumping plant form with broad leaves), they can make a riparian landscape more visually ---PAGE BREAK--- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development 3 pleasing (Hu, 2013). Therefore, using colorful plants in stream riparian wetlands or upland areas could potentially enhance aesthetics of the site. Figure 3-B shows flowering riparian plants in a stream restoration project. In-channel debris. In-channel woody debris is an important stream restoration measure that provides functions such as increasing water retention time in channel, promoting sedimentation, and enhanced conditions for denitrification. Studies found in-channel woody debris decreases attractiveness of a stream landscape and perceptions toward streams with wood debris are associated with cleanness and human care (Gregory & Davis, 1993; Piegay et al., 2005; Vought & Lacoursiere, 2010). Figure 4 is an example stream restoration project with insufficient consideration for the visual impacts of the use of woody debris; the wood piles indicate a lack of maintenance or care for the landscape (Nassauer, 2004). Gravel bars are also disliked in streams with possible explanation that they reduce the proportion of water in the channel (Le Lay, Piegay, & Riviere-Honegger, 2013). However, large boulders are perceived as more attractive and low-maintenance compared to small size gravel (Le Lay et al., 2013). Logs and large boulders, considered as “native materials”, are promoted by Natural Channel Design methods (Lave, 2014; Rosgen, 1997, 2007). Figure 5 shows the use of large boulders for stream flow control. Figure 4. Latchmore Brook Restoration, Latchmore Brook, UK. Permission from Friends of Latchmore, http://friendsoflatchmore.org/. Figure 5. Paint Creek, West Virginia. Permission from Decota Consulting Company Inc.; photographer: James Stanton. Proportion of water in channel. One study found a preference toward stream landscapes with a high proportion of water in the stream channel. Streams with a low proportion of water in the channel were perceived as poorly maintained (Le Lay et al., 2013). The perceived proportion of water in the stream channel could be decreased by the presence of wood debris and deposits. Signs of erosion. People dislike signs of erosion in shoreline landscapes (Hu, 2013). Signs of erosion (such as un-vegetated substrate on a stream bank) and sediment deposits negatively influence visual appeal of a stream (Cottet et al., 2013). In rural landscapes, no erosion indicates the soil and water conservation work of farmers and is associated with aesthetic quality of a landscape (Nassauer, 1989). Undesirable plants. Although uncontrolled vegetation could be visually pleasing in undisturbed natural areas, in human modified landscapes people often expect to see landscape settings with well-kept vegetation (even when the organization of landscape settings appears “natural”). Unmanaged vegetation could decrease visual quality in wetland systems, especially when they block water views or cover large areas of water surface. A plant maintenance plan is critical to the long term success of a project. It should be established during the design process and include maintenance responsibilities, weed control protocol, and funding sources (Howley, 2011; Hu, 2013; Nassauer, 2004). Water flow and area. The aesthetic appeal of a waterscape increases with increasing amounts of visible water (Arriaza, Canas-Ortega, Canas- Madueno, & Ruiz-Aviles, 2004; Dobbie, 2013). However in a stream landscape there is a concave relationship between water flow (amount of water) and landscape aesthetic quality. The attractiveness of water flow in a waterscape increases with increasing flow to a point and then decreases with further flow increases. However, relatively high flows are generally preferred in small streams while flow preferences for large streams are more varied (Brown & Daniel, 1991; Pfluger et al., 2010). Pfluger et al. (2010) suggested exposed stream banks and channel areas could be the reason for low visual appeal at low flows while suspended debris and turbidity might cause the low preference for extremely high flows. Figure 6 shows a daylighted stream designed to keep sufficient water flow in channel for aesthetic appeal. Water from an adjacent river is pumped to this stream channel for consistent water flow. In-channel boulders make the water in a straight channel more interesting. They can function as flow control structures as well as stepping stones used by park visitors. The aesthetic and recreational (attracts ~64,000 visitors daily) benefits promoted regional economic development. This project achieved a land price (properties within 50 meters of restoration site) increase of 30- 50%, double the rates of other areas of the city. It served as a catalyst for ~$1.98 billion US dollar’s worth of investment in urban redevelopment (Robinson & Hopton, 2011). Figure 6. Cheonggyecheon Stream Restoration Project, Seoul, South Korea. Permission from Alexander Robinson. ---PAGE BREAK--- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development 4 Man-made features. Man-made features can either positively or negatively affect the visual appeal of a landscape. The presence of built environments could contribute to stream aesthetic appeal in a high- density urban context (Gobster & Westphal, 2004). Man-made elements such as farm houses increase attractiveness of a rural landscape while roads and power lines decrease aesthetic appeal (Arriaza et al., 2004). Well-designed man-made features, such as walking paths and structures for water viewing, enhance aesthetics and people’s contact with streams by providing water views (Figure 1A, 3A, and Figure Trees. Trees have mixed effects on landscape aesthetic quality. Trees can positively affect the appeal of a waterscape. Wetlands with trees are more appreciated than wetlands with no trees (Dobbie, 2013; Nassauer, 2004; van Marwijk et al., 2012). There is a preference for agricultural landscapes with scattered large trees, however, treeless landscapes are disliked (Ives & Kendal, 2013). In urban settings, trees could either positively or negatively influence stream landscape visual quality. A study on restored stream landscapes showed that trees bring visual appeal to the landscapes and provide privacy; but they can also block views of the landscape and caused complaints from local residents (Purcell, Friedrich, & Resh, 2002). Wild systems (natural aesthetics). Visually mimicking local wild systems is an important approach in restoration landscape design. Natural aesthetics, provided by representations of local natural systems, is emphasized by designers and managers of constructed wetland systems. If not designed or managed appropriately, criticisms can rise due to un-kept looks (Hu, 2013). Indication of human control (mowed grass or trimmed trees) in a landscape is important to enhance aesthetics of a constructed natural system. Figure 7 shows how a restoration project imitates aesthetics of a wild system. In this landscape setting, openness, a curved walkway, boulders, different shades of green, diverse plant species, and appropriate management, are factors that contribute to aesthetics of the landscape. Aesthetics and habitat value are main concerns in the planting design. A pre-vegetated contract-grown (if booking plant materials in advance, nurseries would grow plant materials that will be installed in the long term, so the quantity and quality of plants could be ensured) woody and herbaceous species mix was used to achieve quick establishment, providing aesthetic and habitat value from early time periods and after completion. The project uses 85% native and naturalized plant species and low maintenance was considered in plant selection. This stream daylighting project removed over 4,000 linear feet of culverts. It improved the site’s water conveyance capacity from 1,500 cfs (cubic feet per second) to 6,000 cfs (from 28% to 113% of predicted 100-year flood flow). The result of this restoration work is a sustainable constructed natural system that protects water quality of fluvial systems, is resilient to flooding, creates habitat value, serves recreational purposes, and is attractive (Canfield, Koehler, & Cunningham, 2011). Figure 7. Westerly Creek Restoration, Denver, Colorado. Permission from Forest City Stapleton; photographer: Ken Redding. Educational signs. Although not directly associated with aesthetics of a landscape, educational signs could increase people’s knowledge of streams and potentially promote their visual acceptance for restorations (Figure Educational techniques, such as onsite signs or local social media, could be used to improve people’s ecological understanding and guide perceptions of in-channel wood debris (Chin et al., 2008). Guided on- site educational tours could be used to explain project objectives to local property owners, and to strengthen their emotional affinity for in-stream elements like wood debris and gravel bars (Le Lay et al., 2013). Figure 8. On-site sign delivering educational message on stream restoration, Dunes Creek, Indiana. Permission from Dan Mecklenburg Maximizing synergies Restorations should consider incorporating visual thinking into projects and maximize synergies among aesthetic considerations and environmental benefits. Table 2 summarizes visual and environmental influences of some commonly used restoration measures, including construction of woody debris dams, creation of meandering channels, channel widening and bank grading, and restoration of riparian wetlands and bank vegetation. These restoration measures have a range of functions, such as reducing peak water velocity, increasing base flow, increasing water retention time, and increasing biodiversity (Craig et al., 2008; Vought & Lacoursiere, 2010). The visual quality information of the measures is generated based on visual indicators mentioned previously. For example, the construction of debris dam increases in-channel debris (decrease visual quality), results in decreased proportion of water in channel (decrease visual quality), and increase stream water flow (increase visual quality). It provides environmental functions such as to increase groundwater-surface water exchange, promote sedimentation and nutrient cycling, and enhance ---PAGE BREAK--- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development 5 conditions for denitrification. Considering the potential aesthetic and environmental alternatives for stream restoration, eclectic planning measures and options including; dam construction, debris removal, riparian wetlands restoration, and buffer zone initiation, must be coordinated to achieve maximal community benefits as well as landscape sustainability. Conclusions Aesthetics is an important aspect of sustainable stream restoration. It is often associated with recreational and economic benefits in urban settings. Water aesthetics (interrelated with a variety of landscape elements, including riparian plantings, bank slope, and manmade features) is a key concern in promoting the aesthetics of stream-wetland systems. The environmental functions streams provide (flood control, water quality control, and creation of wildlife habitats) also influence aesthetics of stream landscapes (water flow, water clarity, and desirable wildlife). Connectivity of the site can be increased with bridges, pathways, and overlooks to promote people’s contact with the stream landscape and help them learn more and care more about water systems. Besides design techniques, other factors affect the long-term aesthetic performance of a restoration site, such as use of a maintenance plan, public involvement and education, and funding support. Contact for More Information: Shangchun Hu, NRC, US EPA, GWERD, Ada, OK: [PHONE REDACTED], [EMAIL REDACTED] Ann Keeley, US EPA, GWERD, Ada, OK: [PHONE REDACTED], [EMAIL REDACTED] References Allan, J. D. (2004). Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 257-284. Arriaza, Canas-Ortega, J. Canas- Madueno, J. & Ruiz-Aviles, P. (2004). Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(1), 115-125. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.029 Bernhardt, E. Palmer, M. Allan, J. Alexander, Barnas, Brooks, . . . Sudduth, E. (2005). US river restoration efforts. Science, 308, 636- 637. Brown, T. & Daniel, T. C. (1991). Landscape aesthetics of riparian environments: relationship of flow quantity to scenic quality along a wild and scenic river. Water Resources Research, 27(8), 1787-1795. doi: 10.1029/91wr00975 Canfield, Koehler, & Cunningham, K. (2011). Westerly Creek at Stapleton. from http://www.lafoundation.org/resea rch/landscape-performance- series/case-studies/case-study/357/ Cottet, Piegay, & Bornette, G. (2013). Does human perception of wetland aesthetics and healthiness relate to ecological functioning? Journal of Environmental Management, 128, 1012-1022. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.06.056 Craig, L. Palmer, M. Richardson, D. Filoso, Bernhardt, E. Bledsoe, B. . . . Wilcock, P. R. (2008). Stream restoration strategies for reducing river nitrogen loads. Frontiers in Ecology and Table 2. Stream restoration measures and associated visual quality and environmental functions represents positive aesthetic effects; represents negative aesthetic effects; represents mixed aesthetic effects; represents environmental functions provided) Visual and environmental considerations associated with restoration measures Restoration Measures Construction of woody debris dam Creation of channel meanders Channel widening and bank grading Restoration of riparian wetlands and buffer Visual indicator- negative In-channel debris - Reduced proportion of water in channel - - Signs of erosion + + Undesirable plants - Visual indicator- positive Water view + - Meandering shape + Colorful plants + Desirable wildlife + Visual indicator- mixed Water flow + + + + Trees wild systems Environmental functions Reduce (peak) water velocity * * * * Increase base flow * Increase water retention time in stream valley * * * * Increase groundwater-surface water exchange * * Erosion control * * Reduce nutrients and sediment entering stream * * Promote sedimentation * * Nutrient recycling * * Increase retention of organic matter * * * Enhance conditions for denitrification * * * Increase biodiversity and support wildlife * * ---PAGE BREAK--- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development 6 the Environment, 6(10), 529-538. doi: 10.1890/070080 Dobbie, M. F. (2013). Public aesthetic preferences to inform sustainable wetland management in Victoria, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 120, 178-189. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.08.018 Eden, & Tunstall, S. (2006). Ecological versus social restoration? How urban river restoration challenges but also fails to challenge the science-policy nexus in the United Kingdom. Environment and Planning C, 24(5), 661. Gobster, P. & Westphal, L. M. (2004). The human dimensions of urban greenways: planning for recreation and related experiences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(2), 147-165. Gregory, K. & Davis, R. J. (1993). The Perception of Riverscape Aesthetics: an Example from Two Hampshire Rivers. Journal of Environmental Management, 39(3), 171-185. doi: 10.1006/jema.1993.1062 Herzog, T. R. (1985). A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. Journal of Environmental 5(3), 225- 241. Howley, P. (2011). Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes. Ecological Economics, 72, 161-169. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.026 Hu, S. (2013). Planting Design in Urban Residential Stormwater Systems Aligning Visual Quality and Environmental Function through Codes. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Ives, C. & Kendal, D. (2013). Values and attitudes of the urban public towards peri-urban agricultural land. Land Use Policy, 34, 80-90. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.02.003 Kondolf, G. & Yang, C. (2008). Planning river restoration projects: Social and cultural dimensions River restoration: Managing the uncertainty in restoring physical habitat (pp. 41-60): John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Lave, R. (2014). Freedom and constraint: Generative expectations in the US stream restoration field. Geoforum, 52(0), 236-244. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforu m.2013.03.005 Le Lay, Piegay, & Riviere- Honegger, A. (2013). Perception of braided river landscapes: Implications for public participation and sustainable management. Journal of Environmental Management, 119, 1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.006 Litton, R. & Tetlow, R. J. (1974). Water and landscape: An aesthetic overview of the role of water in the landscape. Port Washington, New York: Water Information Center. Nassauer, J. I. (1989). Agricultural policy and aesthetic objectives. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 44(5), 384- 387. Nassauer, J. I. (2004). Monitoring the success of metropolitan wetland restorations: Cultural sustainability and ecological function. Wetlands, 24(4), 756-765. National Research Council. (2011). Sustainability and the U.S. EPA: The National Academies Press. Ozdil, T. Modi, Stewart, & Dolejs, M. (2013). Buffalo Bayou Promenade. from http://www.lafoundation.org/resea rch/landscape-performance- series/case-studies/case-study/623/ Palmer, M. & Bernhardt, E. S. (2006). Hydroecology and river restoration: Ripe for research and Water Resources Research, 42(3). Pfluger, Rackham, & Larned, S. (2010). The aesthetic value of river flows: An assessment of flow preferences for large and small rivers. Landscape and Urban Planning, 95(1-2), 68-78. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.12.004 Piegay, Mutz, Gregory, K. Rinaldi, Bondarev, Chin, . . . Joshi, V. (2005). Public perception as a barrier to introducing wood in rivers for restoration purposes. Environmental Management, 36(5), 665-674. doi: 10.1007/s00267-004-0092-z Purcell, A. Friedrich, & Resh, V. H. (2002). An assessment of a small urban stream restoration project in northern California. Restoration Ecology, 10(4), 685-694. doi: 10.1046/j.1526- 100X.2002.01049.x RESTORE Partnership. (2013). Rivers by Design: Rethinking development and river restoration. Bristol, UK: Environment Agency (UK). Robinson, & Hopton, M. (2011). Cheonggyecheon Stream Restoration Project. from http://www.lafoundation.org/resea rch/landscape-performance- series/case-studies/case-study/382/ Rogge, Nevens, & Gulinck, H. (2007). Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: Looking beyond aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 82(4), 159-174. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.006 Rosgen, D. L. (1997). A geomorphological approach to restoration of incised rivers. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the conference on management of landscapes disturbed by channel incision. Rosgen, D. L. (2007). Rosgen geomorphic channel design. In J. Bernard, J. F. Fripp & K. R. Robinson (Eds.), Part 654 Stream Restoration Design National Engineering Handbook. Washington, D.C.: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. van Marwijk, R. B. Elands, B. H. Kampen, J. Terlouw, Pitt, D. & Opdam, P. (2012). Public perceptions of the attractiveness of restored nature. Restoration Ecology, 20(6), 773-780. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2011.00813.x Vought, L. & Lacoursiere, J. O. (2010). Restoration of Streams in the Agricultural Landscape. In M. Eiseltova Restoration of Lakes, Streams, Floodplains, and Bogs in Europe: Principles and Case Studies (Vol. 3, pp. 225-242).