City Council Meeting June 23, 2014

0:00:40are we ready okay uh good evening everyone uh thank you for coming welcome to the El Cerrito city council meeting we're not on camera however yes you are we are it's not showing it will be don't worry okay we'll move on okay um will you please join me in the pledge

0:01:10of allegiance to the flag or an observation of a moment of silence led by a council member Greg Lyman of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all thank you are there any Council or staff

0:01:34Communications no okay are there any staff Communications okay um moving on are there any oral Communications from the public on items not on the agenda or um let's see there is no consent calendar so it would only be on items not on the agenda tonight okay are there

0:02:03any speaker slips yes mayor we have Tom panis as our only speaker good evening mayor Abelson members of the council and City staff my name is Tom pandas and I live at [address removed] in El Cerrito I have good news to report about our seed Library in the unlikely event you have forgotten

0:02:32our seed library is a self-service Enterprise located in the lobby of the office at the recycling center the staff at the recycling center reports the seed Library gets good traffic and the staff there has given us some interesting suggestions in the last two weeks I've pulled 18 MTC envelopes

0:02:47out of the collection they go back to Robin Mitchell to be refilled gar Schultz has recently give us permission to install a larger seat cabinet based on our experience to date and the suggestions of the staff there's even better news Liz Rule and our community library manager recently

0:03:02asked if we would consider establishing a branch of the seed library at our Public Library on Stockton Avenue of course we said yes Liz intends to include the seed library in her local implementation strategy for the overall Library strategic plan for those of you who haven't stopped by

0:03:18lately the El Cerrito community garden at Fairmont Park is producing lots of delicious things to eat we hope you'll stop by to see if there's anything you'd like to take home this is a community garden open to the public everyone is willing to partake in what grows there

0:03:35at Eureka and Liberty during the prime growing season there's a vegetable swap for home gardeners and aspiring home gardeners every Thursday at six eat in the evening in fact on Thursday the 3rd we plan to Mill some local wheat and maybe corn as well in addition to swapping And

0:03:52discussing vegetables everyone's welcome at the vegetable swap regardless of whether you have anything to swap we hope to see you there thank you for time this evening thank you and that's it on the public comments yes thank you there are no presentations tonight and there is no consent calendar

0:04:10as I said earlier so we will move on to item number six which is the continuation of a public hearing on a project at 1715 Elm Street which is a plan development and appeal and I think we need do we open this with this uh thing for me to read should I start anybody yes it's

0:04:37available to you if you would like to use that okay why don't I do that um so we this is a continuation of the public hearing on the project being proposed at 1715 Elm Street and it's a 15 unit development project there are technically two actions being considered by the city council this

0:05:00evening the first one is the consideration of the overarching entitlements for this project which is the general plan Amendment plan development district and development agreement and the second one is an appeal of the plan development use permits from our last meeting we have a

0:05:18lot of information regarding the project and the findings council is required to make to act on these issues as many of you know the city council received several hours of testimony on this project on June the second many of you spoke regarding this proposal and we

0:05:36thank you for sharing your time and Thoughts with us at the end of the meeting we close the public hearing and brought the project back to the council for deliberation tonight we will pick the projects deliberation back up from the point that we closed the public

0:05:53hearing we currently have in front of us a very brief staff update reiterating the purpose of tonight's meeting with no new information or analysis the applicant sent a letter summarizing in writing they're offered to make the historic house a least non-residential

0:06:12use to a public beneficiary after restoration and relocation and to shorten the term of the development agreement as they stated at the June 2nd meeting there was no new information provided and copies of a letter and the staff report are available on the city's

0:06:30website for review and um should I then continue and talk about now I guess no that would be what we might possibly do um Okay so so is this the point at which we start discussing it that among the council members uh I believe that's correct um this basically you can unless uh the

0:06:59um Miss Kavanaugh Lynch has anything to add um I think you can basically treat this as though you had just closed the public hearing and resume as you normally would okay just two minor uh points to bring to the attention of the city council attachment three had a typographical

0:07:18error it's a total of 15 units and that is also found um in front of you there's revised resolution uh for attachment four and attachment three uh it was merely a typographical error between it's a total of 15 units 14 existing and uh 14 proposed in one existing so just to be

0:07:35clear of why you have multiple copies of those two attachments in front of you tonight this only changes yes thank you so so the changes were on on recital a finding one to to specify specifically on attachment three in section one a recitals uh a clarification of for a total of 15 units

0:08:02and then on attachment four uh on page two subsection four instead of the number 13 it should divide the number 14.

0:08:13correct and actually on uh page two of attachment three you struck the word 13 and typed in the word 14 in in finding one thank you council member that's correct that's that is another uh clear clearer I believe there was one other place where the number 13 needed to be changed

0:08:38to 14 and maybe it's in one of the resolutions that's before us um when we get there I will I will find it I have it marked up in my in my hard copy likewise there was something else confusing should I just mention it now on attachment for page five number nine

0:09:00it says no construction shall take place on June 27 2014.

0:09:06at the time that condition of approval was drafted that was the graduation for the preschool so if they had received their approvals in time that we wanted to make sure that was stipulated that graduation and construction would not happen simultaneously and if we get to that point today Madam

0:09:22mayor I will be making a recommendation that that be made into a condition without a date because they've asked for a five-year development agreement we don't know what year this this will be built so I will be asking that to be converted into a not date specific condition okay

0:09:44okay so with that we're ready for I believe for Council discussion are would you like to start over here on Greg do you want to I'm more than willing to start if if uh if that's the case um if no one else would like to go first um I do have prepared remarks and I

0:10:06apologize in advance for the length of them and I there is a stopping point which we can stop and discuss a couple of things um the first thing I want to do is and I see Mr Biggs in the audience I want to thank you for your commitment to El Cerrito and proposing a high quality

0:10:23development in El Cerrito and I'm hoping that we can provide you guidance tonight adequate direction for a project to move forward on that property and I want to thank the appellants for their work and commitment to the character of El Cerrito I appreciate their passion and vision

0:10:40and I really want to thank staff it's been a long road on this project and your professional commitment to El Cerrito and trying to get us the highest quality project is very much appreciated your work has been unbiased and you have performed your job very well

0:10:56so there's a number of topics for us to do and I've grouped them into four General groups and I'd like to to go through them in some fashion there's cultural resources versus the opportunity to restore the creek and that's the one I'm going to start with there's density in the general plan

0:11:11Amendment and that's our second attachment that's one of the uh actions that we're considering specifically would it be meaningful manner for just briefly would it be meaningful for us as a council discuss each one of those yes and so all I'm going to do at this point

0:11:26one at a time all I'm going to do is is uh outline the four general areas that I think we'll be talking about height and shading and the last one is parking and traffic so I'd like to start with cultural resources versus the opportunity to store the restore the

0:11:39creek first so the first thing I would like to do is is get some terminology uh straight and it affects regardless of which direction we go it affects how we talk about the the current um aquatic feature that I think it was non-jurisdictional aquatic feature is

0:12:02what Mr Woods characterized it as and uh so I would request that we um we adopt clear language regarding the current structure and and call it something to the effect of historic Stonewall Channel um and to describe the current condition of the creek as described in our Creek ordinance

0:12:2919.12.030 this channel would be considered a creek under the ordinance however if the council proceeds with the planned development District the creek overlay ordinance would not apply and the council would not need to make the four findings in 19.12.060 point e as stated in the

0:12:49public comment uh period and that's was at time stamp 3 hours and 16 minutes of the June 2nd streaming media and all references to timestamps will be towards that meeting so if the council proceeds with a plan development district and retains the historic Stonewall channel the proposed

0:13:07Project's main structure the 14 new condos would eliminate future potential to restore the creek further as testified Mr wood time stamp 119 the planned riparian plantings need to change that was in regards to the Sycamore being wedged between the buildings and at time stamp 105

0:13:27that the corridor will have very limited Crete functions as recognized by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife when issued issuing their permit which they've already issued the historic Stonewall Channel defies the creek ordinance and as Mr wood testified timestamp one hour

0:13:44creates a sterile environment if we retain the historic Stonewall Channel then we should accept that it is not a creek and we should not reference it as such in in tonight's Council actions so I would respectfully request that we refer to it as a historic Stonewall Channel

0:14:02from this point forward and in our actions that we take this evening in public comment time stamp 2 hours and 44 minutes it was suggested that the National Park Service balances cultural resources and natural resources routinely so I reviewed the national park services management plan dated 2006

0:14:21and found in section 6.3.8 cultural resources and I quote cultural resources that have been included within the Wilderness will be protected and maintained according to the pertinent laws and policies governing cultural resources so there is actually precedence in in

0:14:39federal government at least within the natural park service to retain the historic wall channel in lieu of a natural resource in the cultural resources report page 36 I quote the rodini house would be the only structure on the southern third of the property and it would be separated from

0:14:56the new building by the restored historic Creek Channel giving it a natural buffer though it would be set back further from the street than it is now this configuration is not uncommon for properties of this type in Rural and once rural parts of Contra Costa County

0:15:12like El Cerrito older farmhouses like the rodini house were sometimes placed at the rear of the property in order to free up space for a garden or a barn at the front of the property end quote therefore the historic Stonewall channel the house and the proper treatment in

0:15:32front of the house could create the historic fabric that would preserve the house and the context of the property so this I you know I'm I'm thinking the current proposed extensive Landscaping could be modified to better meet the recommendation of the culture resources

0:15:52report and convey the historic fabric of the property and and that is consistent with some of the suggestions that we got in in the letter from uh Mr Biggs so I've discussed the value of the cultural resource now I'd like to turn to the value of the natural resource

0:16:13to retain the term Creek we would need to recognize the functions and values of a creek as Mr wood testifies Tim's timestamp 105 adherence to a designated with is not technically appropriate each Creek segment has a different width need to provide the functions and values

0:16:33for the creek and the Watershed that it serves a hydrology report would provide us with more information about the dimensions needed for this Creek if it was restored Mr wood acknowledged he has not done a watershed analysis time stamp 111 Mr wood testifies that the 10-foot

0:16:52setback is very common time stamp 104.

0:16:56Mr wood testified he has overseen Wildcat Creek restoration of 600 feet timestamp 106 and he mentions restoration of Baxter Creek timestamp 105 and cornices Creek timestamp 112.

0:17:10now I'm familiar with Baxter Creek and Courtney's Creek but I'd like to refresh the council about the urban interface next to these two creeks and so I do have a few photos that I would like to present at this time so this first photo is from April um can you help me out there Margaret

0:17:37must have done oh I know what I did wrong Escape or something foreign so this first slide is of Baxter Creek in April 2008 and you can see uh the the raw Channel as it was just being constructed uh at that time it's not vegetated it's been planted it's slightly vegetated

0:18:06but you can see it's fitting inside of and I measured it it's between 50 and 60 feet and here it is the same Corridor with four years later August of 2012 with trees uh you know providing quite a bit this is about 600 feet so comparable to the Wildcat Creek that Mr wood was

0:18:29talking about this next slide is 2004. it's called nissi's Creek prior to the project and and you'll see that they actually are going to restore quite a bit of this project here um but again it's confined between the buildings and structures on the on the side one structure I'm going to have you

0:18:47focus on is this one right here uh in the middle because that structure also visible here is very close to the creek as it winds meanders its way through this Meander belt of the riparian zone uh here's the same building taken from the opposite perspective looking back at

0:19:08the University Village Under Construction again you can see the fence in the foreground is very close to the Meander of the of the creek cornices Creek February 2011. you can see the right hand side uh being recently constructed so that and the development of the vegetation is very thick and here

0:19:33similar to Baxter Creek coming closer to home and this again is much longer than what our project is but it also drains a much larger area Poinsett Park this little project here is in our town at North End of town and it's 200 feet so it's comparable to the the potential

0:19:54future of the Elm Street property plus the Liberty Street property and again it's not very wide at the Eastern end of this it's probably no wider than 20 feet across um consistent with that so none of these Creeks have uniform setbacks and as demonstrated there are

0:20:16structures that are very close to the defined Channel as it meanders through the repairing Corridor I would suggest that as con as considered in our ordinance 19.12.060 e point four structures could be close to the defined Channel so it's not our place to design the

0:20:36project and we are evaluating the proposed Project tonight however I wanted to explore I'm a curious person and a habitat restoration engineer by professional training so I wanted to explore the opportunity to restore the channel on the subject property so here's the figure that was in our

0:20:59packet and I calculated the area of the Stone Channel as it's proposed in the Landscaping plan 125 feet by six and the proposed area of the pocket park which measures out to 58 by 32.

0:21:18and I determined that the same area if dedicated to a creek would be 125 by 20.

0:21:28this may be an adequate riparian Corridor for this small perennial Creek and the small Watershed that it serves this riparian Corridor could have a path down the side for the channel maintenance and Public Access this width is consistent with the San Pablo Avenue specific plan

0:21:49shown here 20 to 40 feet and that the specific plan was referenced in our public comment period of uh June 2nd time stamp 2 hours and 36 minutes so as Illustrated in this section long numbers 206020103 on page 2.06.150 if this riparian Corridor is extended to Liberty it would be close to 250 feet in

0:22:19length 125 on the subject property and a potential 125 on the Liberty property and it could have a trail for access from from Elm to Liberty and this outdoor Laboratory could be the future of some Keystone biologist therefore I submit we need to decide do we protect the historic Stonewall

0:22:43Channel or promote the restoration of the creek because as proposed the project would block the rest of the future restoration of the creek so I personally support the restoration of the creek for the following reasons Channel maintenance would be maintained by the homeowners as

0:23:05testified in timestamp 132 by Mr Campos and the city will have very little control over the maintenance of this of this channel future restoration whatever is happens there is inadequate room in the proposal to perform Channel repairs after a large earthquake or flood event

0:23:26the creation of a habitat island is more valuable to our community as evidenced by Poinsett Park than preserving the agricultural fabric of the rodini property and finally preserving the creek not the historic Stonewall channel on this property is a precursor it's a necessary

0:23:45precursor for the future restaurant Creek restoration on the property Downstream where there is no historic attribute to protect that Creek for these reasons I would ask Mr Biggs and Mr Campos to reevaluate the project I believe that there is room on this project for a very good high density

0:24:06project while dedicating the amount of public space you've provided instead of having it be a pocket park have it be riparian corridor and that that to me is the first of four I'm hoping we we may get to talk about many of these but I do want to also talk about the density and general plan

0:24:28Amendment the heightened shading and parking and traffic because I think it's important for these things to be go out for us to go on record about what we want to see at this project site so would you see us discuss stopping Now And discussing that one issue okay Mark do you have a

0:24:44comment yeah um well I really appreciate all the time and work and good thinking that council member Lyman put into this process and um yes I would prefer to see uh riparian Creek in that space if it can be well integrated with the project along the line suggested by council member Lyman I

0:25:06think it's a creative approach to one of the thorny problems that this project in its current form presents so I support that I have a couple of comments I really appreciate the way you've come at this at this issue it's interesting how we all I came in a very different way so

0:25:25it's kind of interesting to see how you you approached it um my question though is is first where just or just let's get all of our of the facts that we're needing to consider and thinking about this issue first this would all be on private property and it just try I'm trying to recall the map

0:25:39but the idea would be would be this property and the wooden walkway so it would all be on private property so there wouldn't be public access to the creek is that your understanding of of the idea that you had I I believe that that uh we it once we establish the

0:25:57framework around what we want that potentially they could come back and be very creative and for example this uh at least on the the Elm Street property that 20 25 foot wide by 125 foot portion could potentially be dedicated to the city in its entirety possibly through a

0:26:15lot line adjustments or whatever's not necessary there was historically three Parcels there so potentially they can establish three Parcels again it does not answer the question on the about the creek on the Liberty property we're not we're not evaluating that property

0:26:29tonight but if at some point that project that property was to come back um it it would be faced with the same sort of dilemma and the same sort of constraints and uh it wouldn't have the historic stone wall Channel attribute for us to say well we're going to relieve you of the the creek protection

0:26:53overlay because this Stonewall channel is more valuable mm-hmm and my recollection is that the way that the current water feature is is uh it goes through the Elm Street property then it goes underneath a house or a garage a garage and then it goes under the wooden

0:27:14walkway it's a shed a storage shed perhaps it might be occupied at night I don't know but it's definitely an outbuilding okay and then it goes under the wooden walkway um so my my um my fir my first thought and I don't see anybody here from Keystone but if I were in Keystone one one

0:27:35um potential idea I might pose or thing to consider is having Public Access that goes all along that fence line at in day and night that might raise some concerns um just to have sort of that public wage between two buildings it might be a little bit difficult to monitor so

0:27:51that's it the public way would be on the north side of the restored structure so there would be the restored structure would be next to Keystone then at the front end of the property maybe it would help if we put back up the drawing that you had put up sorry Margaret and

0:28:12yeah thanks for clarifying that I was still I was in the old days of the project description looking at thinking that um so the I'm gonna turn this back on I got it one more you dragged and dropped it somewhere now it's now the last I think I did see well I I do I think I do see

0:28:48what you were talking about now um yeah thank you the house on the right so the rodini product so it the challenge the reason why the rodini property was put in the back of the parcels that's the only place where the the existing building width can fit between the stone Channel and the and

0:29:02the property line and as indicated in the um the culture resources report it would be fitting for this whole area the creek and the the just basically the southern third of the parcel to be to maintain the fabric of this agricultural Rural and uh agricultural aspect and that is

0:29:24essentially now what the project proponent potentially is proposing if the creek goes into a riparian corridor you could put a pipe in to kick it away from from the property line enough so that a parcel a building the building could be placed in the front so it would maintain its current position

0:29:41to the street that it currently has you could potentially even restore and preserve a small portion of the stone bound the stone work with along with photos and other documentation to demonstrate what this is but the path would be over here down through the the center of the

0:29:58project again it could close at night similar to what the project currently is proposing so that it until such time as it's available to go through to Liberty it would still operate similar to the pocket park that was proposed it does leave a large portion of the

0:30:13property and if we get to it there are some concessions on density and concessions on parking that I might consider to make this a viable project there's also potentially room in the back that uh some units could go in the back there would be obviously access issues to them but there are there are

0:30:32some creative things this is just one uh trying to demonstrate that it's feasible potentially feasible using the footprint that was previously proposed as a stone-lined channel and pocket park so it'd be Trading the cultural fabric of the property for the creek restoration

0:30:59okay my other thanks for explaining that the the the this designing at the podium is always a little bit you know you have to take a little bit of time so the other comment I was thinking of while you were speaking was this seems like almost an ideal optimizing of the things

0:31:16you talked about you know saving the right pairing habitat and still um getting the density and the Tod type of development I'm not totally sure how many units we would get but getting the Tod type of development we would like and I guess my first reaction is why

0:31:29wouldn't this have come up during the design process and this is the part of the hearing where it's difficult to and I can I I will say that the cultural resources report is compelling the cultural resources report really does argue for the preservation of the stonewalled the historic Stonewall

0:31:47channel so in keeping with the cultural resources report they the proposing the proposal did the best um that that linear feature that runs through the property is very confining and and I I have to and that's why I gave the cultural resources the portion of my presentation so much credit is

0:32:08that they have done a fantastic job but when we're balancing as I think you all discussed last uh last time we met when you're balancing all of these things something has to give and in my humble opinion the the the natural resources and the access of our public to the Natural Resources will

0:32:33be it'll be much more appreciated and much more used by our public than than the rock lined Channel I okay thank you I'd like to hear what everybody what Jenna has to say and mayor Abelson is I'm still considering the all the things you put forward thank you so um could I just ask so on the uh most

0:32:58eastern part that brown line from Elm Street would be a pipe that goes yeah this this black line here would be a pipe that goes essentially from a a drop there's a drop Inlet out of the curb and you would essentially take that and put a pipe over to a head wall at at the

0:33:16start of the creek and and that could that pipe could if you wanted the creek to be a little longer you could go from the other side of the of the street and come across and daylight closer to the curb it it can be done either way this one's probably the less expensive one because you're not

0:33:31dealing with the crossing the street and the house is going to stay where it currently is the house is currently here actually it's over there so it's going to be moved over closer to the Keystone Property correct and there's an empty space now behind the house up to the lot line

0:33:51correct which which again you have to figure that out there's probably enough room there for two units uh duplex type uh property similar to some of the properties that are north of here which way are you talking about are you talking directly behind the yeah the

0:34:06home directly behind the home this little corner there might be enough room there for for a duplex there may not be I don't you know the rodini house could move closer to the riparian corridor there could be a driveway that goes down the side of Keystone I didn't I didn't

0:34:20try to design this no I understand I'm just trying to Performance yeah I'm trying to put forward a compelling argument for restoration of the creek I have no problem with this um you know I like the historic oral Stonewall Channel because after hearing the testimony from the

0:34:43biologist it's not really it it's not riparian now there is no life there in this Creek but it has the potential um so I think this is a compromise I think it's really very obvious that we may we may not get everything that we originally wanted in this project and there's going to have

0:35:06to be compromises somewhere along the way I know that there was a speaker that stated that the rock line wall had historic significance as you've already alluded to that it may be I think the word was um the only one of its existence in the state of California but I think that a compromise to

0:35:39removing that would be to do something like you said to have some a little piece of it left um because it is rather impressive I have to say um to note some historical um no significance to it and and why what was done was done so this is very creative I have a question about the red lines uh

0:36:07as far as the red line what do you potentially see that space between the so the the red lines are on there to sort of designate the Meander belt or the riparian Zone okay and so it it would be they're roughly parallel they're roughly 22 or 23 feet apart you know I didn't try and scale it off but

0:36:27it's the intent was to try and keep the area inside the red lines to be the same general square footage as was previously proposed for the Stonewall Channel and uh the pocket park so in essence I'm I'm putting forth a decision do we preserve the agricultural stat

0:36:48status of the property of the rodini with the rodini house in the back and an orchard and some planting beds in the front and the rock wall Channel and we have compelling evidence in our cultural resources report to go with that and that's more or less what the

0:37:03proposal is or do we for the reasons I've stated potentially consider you know encouraging the the applicant to consider restoration and and the over for me the the the fact that there is this open Channel that's uh you know west of here um that and that open channel will be

0:37:26restored at some point when that property redevelops um you know ideally 10 50 100 years from now and and if this is going to be a rock wall that's going to be a rock wall Channel if it's going to be a restored channel it's a restored Channel but you can't do what the applicants asked us

0:37:42what the appellants asked us to do two weeks ago was both and my point is you can't do both you can't have the rock line uh the rock lined The Rock walled Channel and a viable Creek restoration I mean uh councilmember Friedman pointed out you could just as easily kick the

0:38:04channel and have the creek go down the side of the property and and move I mean if you're going to once you're once you're committed to restoring the channel you can restore the channel on the on the southern side um then then the historic home is is up abutting the proposed uh new house that

0:38:25may or may not be something that the the applicants can work on all I'm putting forth is a compelling argument that the creek restoring the creek has a in my mind and I'm just one of the five of us in my mind restoring the creek has a greater weight than preserving those stone wall Channel

0:38:46and how far is it from a red line to the house as you have as you see it now I mean just as a as why did for instance yeah the for instance I think this was roughly 10 feet but you could shift it over because really it's 10 feet you depending on which ordinance you look at

0:39:02or which guidance you look at this house could be much closer to the red line and there there could be a you know a driveway down the southern Edge to those units in the back well if you were going to consider something like this would it maybe not make more sense to

0:39:18have the prop to have the creek detoured more to the right and moved the house I don't know somewhere else I mean because what I'm concerned about is the space that's behind the house to the end of the property line and if you were going to put a duplex there you have no access to it I don't

0:39:35understand how that would even work this is five feet currently if you move five feet over you would have 10 feet you could get a driveway to the back and that's similar that's similar to the property three up there they have a driveway past the main front building

0:39:51so and again I'm not trying to design it tonight all I was trying to do is present a compelling argument that restoration of the creek uh is of greater value than the stone uh the stone-lined channel can I more Edition and then a question um so so under this presentation the

0:40:11thing that we would give up would be the the potentially historically significant Stone line Channel potentially one of a kind of estate and I would imagine we would also give up the proposal I'm imagining from the applicant that they would dedicate the house at restoration

0:40:26just given that they would then have a lower density project um we don't know that they will but we it's fair to assume that it might be yes right um okay so that's the as we're balancing just want to throw in what what we're balancing and the other could I oh and ask a question about what you

0:40:43said why is it we're having a lower density project I didn't see what we were doing that was making it lower density well I think there's less land on the north side of the property there is less Land north of the of the riparian belt but there is no less open space they already dedicated almost 50

0:41:04percent of the property to open space they could still have 50 of the property to open space it does beg the question of the space behind in this corner I won't deny that that's a problem but as I said you could you could carve out the creek and throw the creek down the the

0:41:22right side um I'm not trying to come up with the final solution I'm I'm just saying that there are um creative things one reason for the red lines I think the question was what's the red lines that could be the property lines of a parcel that's carved out and given to the city

0:41:39and the city becomes responsible for maintenance of the creek that's you know that I'm not making that proposal but that's one of the creative things that somebody could do another thing that that could be creative is you move the curb you move the curb out four feet and

0:41:54you come to the city and you say you want the creek give me you know three or four feet of the of the street and I and we'll move the sidewalk up and and we'll have room that way or the other way you move the sidewalk back further and have diagonal parking in here and and

0:42:09therefore no covered parking on site there's a lot of things you can do the point what I'm trying to get to is the guidance is the restored Creek is more valuable than a stone line Channel and that's all I'm trying to that decision is to me the decision that that we

0:42:25should consider and can I ask staff about whether or not in our code there are restrict directions in any way on water bodies like this being some number of feet from a neighbor's property line so I'm just thinking in the case if you were to try to do this restoration off

0:42:45to the side of the property as much as possible in order to try to keep as many units as possible do are we running into a problem then with with Keystone or other neighbors um having any any concerns about having the water wave you know moved closer to their property

0:43:02I don't know if you can answer that in my experience in the city of El Cerrito we haven't actually relocated a creek bed in this fashion and I'm on a private property discussion there are some building code requirements about water on a property remains on the property cannot cross property lines

0:43:19um I think we would do this in conjunction with a study a hydraulic study of the stream bed itself to make sure that there would be no negative impacts on the neighbor's properties okay thank you thank you I think we were actually with Jen are you finished Jan okay 31 do you want to make another

0:43:41comment right now okay then I'll um start so um first of all I'd like to ask councilmember Lyman a question are you using your technical expertise I'm I'm relying on some of my technical experts yes okay I just wanted what I just wondered so you have uh technical

0:44:01experience and uh training that um is the backdrop for what you've been saying um with regards to the potentiality yes but I would have to defer and and get a hydrology study the hydrology study may come back and say it needs to be 60 feet wide at which point this is not

0:44:20necessarily going to be a conceivable proposal uh so so within my understanding of where the headwaters are of this this project the dimensions of the channel as it sits today uh the fact that there's no reported Flooding at the site I believe that we could look at something that's

0:44:40as narrow as 20 25 feet right pairing Corridor in this area but I I am not a hydrologist and I rely on professional hydrologists to give me the type of sinuosity and uh gradient that this Creek would have to drop over the over this distance so I I can't say that I've

0:44:59done a technical analysis but I can say that within my experience this is feasible but we would have to get the we'd have to get the details have you been present in a um project environment where something like this happened before Courtney sees Creek okay um so that is that is they did a similar

0:45:20thing to what you you're saying we should look at they they took a concrete uh Channel and a pipe and turned it from a straight channel into a sinuous Channel within a very tight confined they did a lot of studying and fought for we've fought tooth and nail for every inch on that project and they

0:45:47were able to make it work within a very tight constraint and that may or may not work in this this environment but I don't I don't know if if I approve the current Project tonight I will never find out so I'm not saying I'm rejecting the existing project they may come back with

0:46:04a hydrology analysis and and say that it's not feasible so now I have a question of staff and the question I would I would have if we were to consider what council member Lyman has said and want to proceed along that path what would be the steps that we would take to

0:46:26to do that City attorney and I can can both answer different components of that question um from a landing standpoint I would need additional hydrological studies as we've referenced I would need to um revisit the historical study to see if the removal of the creek bed has an

0:46:50adverse impact it is I was just reading quickly as we were talking I would want to go back and make sure that we aren't running a fallacy Globe by removing um the the stone bed or leaving part of it in place that wasn't contemplated so it really wasn't addressed very well in

0:47:05the study so I'd want to go back and do additional analysis on that and then there would be really a revised site plan right so we would need to look at the uh the entrance and exit of the how if there is parking where that would be how the driveway would work what the size of

0:47:23the new construction would be it would be I'm happy to do it but it would be a re-analysis of the project we'd be building back from the creek so then after that re-analysis where do we resume in the process of um project approval if that's the right word um well one way to proceed

0:47:46um if to the extent that that from what I'm hearing is that if if other members of the council are interested in considering this concept that it hinges to a significant degree on a hydrology report seems to me that the council could um that reopen and continue the public

0:48:05hearing with direction to how hydrology report prepared to see whether or not this is feasible but obviously that's not the end of the story because because if the height depending on what the hydrology report said if this concept is feasible in some way and the

0:48:21council ultimately wanted to see a project in this Direction I mean obviously significant revisions this project are going to be necessary we don't really know how much land is left we don't know where buildings would be located we don't know what densities would look like so we really don't know

0:48:35the applicability of any of the documents that are in front of you right now including the the mitigated negative declaration so so one of the things that would seem that was mentioned as a possibility that had not been analyzed is the location of a um um a duplex over in the behind the

0:48:58the house and um so would all of that somehow occur in that process to see if that fits if it's financially viable I mean with all of I mean how I don't know enough to know how all of those things would come together and move forward in a process I think it depends to a significant

0:49:24degree on whether or not you just want to see what a hydrology report says and then proceed from there if you're basically saying we want to see what the whole package looks like before we're ready to proceed in which case um there's a there's a more comprehensive process that would have to

0:49:39occur to be able to answer that kind of a question I mean it's not like it has to be limited um you know if you're going to continue this to receive more information you could request in addition to the hydrology report an alternative site plan all different a different approach

0:49:55to deciding of of and of buildings and the density and design depending on the outcome of the hydrology report but you know there's there's a number of different Alternatives but um you know it's a little bit of a difficult process because you're basically um contemplating something that renders

0:50:19significantly um questionable most of the documents that are in front of you tonight and just to be clear then the process would start all over again in terms of design review where I'm Planning Commission is that right I can't answer that I mean possibly yes if I mean if if we went got to a point

0:50:41where the rodini house is a bit in a different location and you have a lower number of units and you have diagonal parking wouldn't have to go through design review again well the um probably okay I mean maybe probably yeah I mean you're asking me to to tell you

0:51:01what the process is for something that doesn't exist that if that map existed but I don't know what's on that I don't know what else is on there all I have is some is some lines okay I don't know I don't if it's pot like for example let's say that the the multi-family portion of the project

0:51:20were actually significantly able to fit in the remainder of the north side of the property um based on you know the hypertrology report came back and said it needs to be this wide you could actually fit that proposed building right there you wouldn't need to necessarily send it

0:51:34back to design review because the same building would be basically be proposing the same building maybe with minor modifications right that's what I was but we don't really know the answer to that there's some administrative there's some changes to the building that could

0:51:45be handled administratively potentially potentially okay let me let me ask about that the um when you say the building you mean the um building I mean the proposed new building that would have 14 units correct okay so what because what because what I didn't quite understand was

0:52:09um not it's not I'm not seeing is it is it on this drawing is that what that no I as I said I wasn't trying to design the project so no there's no is it what I remember reading is that there was a lot of open space and so um I'm wondering why there is no longer

0:52:34enough space for the building having made this change if that change were made it it all it all boils down to the configure as as the City attorney has said it all boils down to the configuration of the remaining structures they might be able to put for example

0:52:52some of the C3 uh swales they might actually be able to put into the riparian zone and and meet their needs I I'm not trying to design their project all I'm trying to Advocate is that our decision tonight is if we choose to go with the proposed project we are supporting the rock lined channel the

0:53:17historic Rock line Channel and and making it um not practical to do uh riparian Restoration in the future and and that's that's that's the for me I struggled with this many days and finally was able to boil it down to the nut that was was uh that I was struggling with is that it's it's

0:53:40a cultural resources versus a natural resource and uh for me the natural resources is more valuable can I ask another question of Staff um can I ask were in your recollection of this process was anything like restoring the creek contemplated so this project has been before the city

0:54:02of El Cerrito in one form or another since 2005. right so in the last 13 months that I've been present with the city of El Cerrito we had not we already had the historic resource report we had the biological resource report none of them had contemplated basically designing around

0:54:20the riparian corridor for the creek it's um so no this this okay revisiting it in this in this uh approach is uh very exciting but it was not the way the the plans basically were based on the historic information given to us by the sequel documents so I have a go ahead I have a so so I'm

0:54:45really struggling with is is is whether is trying to figure out at this point if this could be feasible at all or if we're sending this down a a potential path of you know not not a not a fruitful path although I I really appreciate how you have put this together so I'm I'd like to propose that

0:55:02we consider reopening the public hearing to hear any reaction from the applicant about whether or not this was studied and obviously that would open it up to to others to make a comment but I I'm not able I don't think I'm able to support going forward with these

0:55:17additional studies when we have some of the professionals here who might have already thought about these things if we could just take some extra time and hear from them maybe they would have some insights as to whether or not this is worthy of study um or if it's something that has been

0:55:31considered in one shape or form or another and there are some problems with it maybe they could tell us what the problems are and then we'd know more about what we're trading and what we're balancing so I'd propose that we consider we can have more discussion and maybe if we do

0:55:44open the public hearing then we could ask for other sorts of input I'm not really in favor of opening the um the meeting for public hearing right now but what I would like to hear is a little bit more information so I think it would be maybe unfortunate if we had to start

0:56:04from scratch again in this project and that may ultimately happen but what I'm when I'm looking at this and I'm looking where the I always want to call it anyway the the rock wall Channel the house currently sits where approximately the red lines are now if you move the creek bed closer to where

0:56:27you have penciled in the historic home the rodini home do you think and it was in that space where the red lines are is where a lot of that open space was the project if the if everything was shifted more to the right potentially the project could fit yes the creek to the right so if if you take

0:56:52Greg's red lines and move them closer to the property line on on the south side of the property the project potentially could fit as well whatever we talk about later but the the what I don't know where the house is going to go right that the if the if the first 25 feet of this 150

0:57:14foot parcel was Creek um you know and the effort was made to put it over there then there would be a very large um expanse and whether that's um I I professionally believe that that both the regional board and the and the state uh fish and wildlife service would

0:57:36support you know moving the creek for the purposes of getting it uh restored so that I would not I would not be proposing this if I didn't think that it would be permittable from a from a uh from from all the agencies I I do believe the agencies would support um converting this from a rock-lined uh

0:57:57channel to a restore Channel not to say that the states the permit the the state has already issued is wrong the this I mean that's both this is just a different a different idea and potentially is supportable so yes councilmember Bridges if it was running down the the South Edge that's that's we

0:58:16could accomplish the same uh function of values of of creating a a repairing Corridor and then there would be a very large area that that could be used for the structures and if that were true where would you put the rodini house yeah I I yeah I'm not in a position to say I

0:58:36mean again still there was a lot of open space um the open space that the applicant proposed was essentially where the rodini house is being situated now with the rodini house in the back I'm sorry to say that again but there was also a lot of a garden space that there was a

0:58:53bridge across the creek that went over to the buildings and so yeah I would I would what were the demand I would ask you to go to your exhibit from from the from before um so I apologize for not putting this in our display so that those can follow us at home but in essence if you take

0:59:10this green space that is arguably should not necessarily be and I think it was uh testified by Mr Campos that it would be converted from sort of barbecue picnic space potentially to more of a agricultural space but if if you take the area that's here and the area that is the channel

0:59:32and you divide it by 125 feet you end up with about the area that I have said I would like to see in riparian whether mathematically it can stay within that riparian Corridor I don't know all I did was try to balance the square footage so that you know this but then you have as

0:59:53shown in this graphic that's now up the entire property was practically the entire property was a perimeter of 10 feet of trees all the way around the property that perimeter would effectively be remain unaffected it's up here now okay um because what I what I'm proposing is

1:00:15to to put some instead of having the open space in the front near the street is for the open space to essentially course through the property there are things you know it is a right pairing Corridor the C3 Basin might be able to fit inside it in some fashion inside one

1:00:30of the Meander bends um you know the the um the barbecue the the open amenities that for the residents could be incorporated into the riparian area so it it's not it's not a I don't you know I'm I I designed natural spaces um not most of them are habitat restoration for endangered species and

1:00:55don't deal with this Urban interface so how how the the riparian can be incorporated into the into these Living Spaces I'm curious I'm curious what ideas there are out there um but I I was I'm advocating that the you know Tom Panos isn't going to like me but I'm advocating that the natural

1:01:19resources are slightly more valuable than the cultural resources with regards to this particular aspect the The Rock The Rock lined Channel foreign I guess I'll just comment that I I can't support that unless I we I feel like we we're now introducing new information

1:01:42which is great and we can only speak as much as we can in reacting to this information that we've heard over the last hour and it would be great to know from those who have thought about this project over the years whether or not what they think basically and and they

1:01:58will have had a little bit more experience and thought on the project in order to just give a reaction yeah I would argue that this is not a New Concept this concept was put in into the public record uh on June 2nd by the appellants as well as uh Mr wood talking

1:02:13about some of the creek restoration projects that he's seen so I would argue this is not a New Concept that all I'm saying is restoration of the creek in some ways I regret putting that image up because we've we've gone into micro designing the only question I wanted to ask was the restoration of the

1:02:32creek is is the potential for the restoration of the creek versus the preservation of this the rock wall channel that was my question which which do you which is more valuable to you I think for me the other question is how many what type of how much development do we lose I guess that's

1:02:52not the only balance for me is not just the stone Line Creek versus the uh restored Creek but also then is the do we still have a potentially viable project with some number of condominium units that we can put on the market given that in today's market I think

1:03:06there's one condominium uh on the market in in all of El Cerrito at this point so that's another balance that I think of and I would I think we should discuss that for if that is the next item on my list it was density and the general plan Amendment which was our second

1:03:19resolution for this evening and and frankly I have no issue with the proposed General plan Amendment um I to increase the density I for me this is a TOD project and so increasing the density on this project never was never an issue for me on this project it May mean that we end up with a couple of

1:03:38400 square foot units instead of 800 being the smaller size but you know if if we were to end up with five 400 or 6 400 square foot there's 500 600 square foot units in there and and it was all of a sudden a 16 unit development but they were all smaller that filled a niche in our our business

1:03:58our our housing stock the density is not an issue for me it's it's the it's the creek and the form which is the next next topic on my list so so I uh as much as Creek setbacks I think Mr wood said an arbitrary dimension for me the the density is is a form of of uh

1:04:20zoning that we're moving away from on the specific plan and and I'm not married to it in this area um so so with regards to density I'm I'm okay with the density that was being proposed on this project good um do you want to weigh in on what's been said recently

1:04:41no okay thank you um so I feel like what I would like to do is to move forward and go through the other sections and come back and see where we are with the whole picture um okay and I'm guessing complete agreements okay so why don't we go on to the next section which for me is was the

1:05:03density discussion which we've started do you want to lead it again I I just did that's it that's that's my whole pitch is that I have with regards to the density of of having uh what is calculated out to be 35.7 which I would argue with the calculation I think you

1:05:19guys shorted yourself some square footage it's actually 35.4 but I you know that's not the issue here you're still four tenths over 35.

1:05:28um 15 units on this on this on this parcel is not an issue for me when you say it's not an issue you mean I would be a I am if if we get down to the point of moving resolutions tonight um I would be voting for that resolution I would also agree I have no problem

1:05:48with the density I agree yes okay and I would agree and uh further state that this is in the Tod's area and uh part of um meeting our the demands of and needs of Tomorrow is that we find housing for a lot of people who otherwise we'll be occupied in space out in open space areas on the edge of the

1:06:18Bay Area so that that concerns me uh you know if we keep putting off doing density if we didn't do it here and we didn't do it there then ultimately where what what's our climate action plan about anyways what I then start to wonder it's not really going to work if we don't

1:06:38Implement some of the things we have here where there's lots of Transit so go ahead I I agree with you and I I think you know the point was made at the public hearing that along San Pablo Corridor Plaza are sites for density yes but we found that those development

1:06:56projects take sometimes decades right so this and when we get to talking about time frame I'm not comfortable with 10 years I much prefer maximum five years but this project seems a lot easier to get done than those larger projects which you know we we want to see happen at least while some

1:07:17of us are still on the council so that that's why I agree with you okay I might add though that so far this one's been in the works for how many years I think I 2005. well that's why we want to put a link oh it's already been a while yeah and they haven't and we haven't gotten

1:07:34very far they're almost at one decade right so um so so we're already there kind of okay so we'll so we just talked about density or I think we finished with that discussion the next one the heightened shading um and and in the heightened shading discussion uh at timestamp 236

1:07:56during public comment the San Pablo Avenue specific plan was was identified um as I said I went into that and and frankly and I looked to miss Kavanaugh Lynch I did not find a specific height restriction in in the in this specific plan I'm not sure I found a a total height

1:08:18restriction there's two transects in the specific plan um and we're talking about Market housing as opposed to affordable housing or something that would have a density bonus component there's 55 feet or 65 feet but it's context sensitive to shading and other aspects of the person

1:08:33so there is a total height limit there is the tier four so as you know it's just been released for draft and we are all um still there my uh my name is Melanie Mintz and I'm the city's interim community development director and as the draft form-based code um is currently circulating the

1:08:58transit-oriented high-intensity mixed use as Miss Kavanaugh Lynch said is 65 feet and 85 feet with density bonus but that is for a tier two project which would um basically I'd like to say fit like a glove so it fits all of our development standards perfectly including that that

1:09:16height tier four projects however um are envisioned to be things that we haven't envisioned without those same sort of maximums and minimums and your reference to form-based code I think um captures the spirit of it which is a project that is different than one

1:09:33that we wrote the tier two standards for which have specific Heights specific parking specific performance standards it's for other projects that might meet many of the city's goals and values but be different than what we contemplated so if something came in and I think this

1:09:47refers a bit to council member benicini's question when we did do a study session which is something came in that was different where would it go and we envisioned that that would be a more a more in-depth process where it would go to Planning Commission whereas a tier two project

1:10:01that was 65 feet or under and met all of our development standards would just go through the design review process so what I did find though was that in section 2050202 with shadows at the edges of the specific plan Zone and so the form-based code does specific does address The Edge

1:10:20effect the concept of blending from one zone uh RM to another Zone Rd is one I do support the specific plan introduces several Concepts we're making the building height less noticeable at the street level so I I would be looking for a project that incorporated some of these Concepts

1:10:41so that the Elm Street side was not necessarily uh you know quite so imposing um so I'm not opposed to the total height the total height of 39.5 or 30 7 38 the the total height of the project is not is not one that I'm opposed to but but the concept of um being at Elm Street

1:11:06being the right scale on the Elm Street side is one that I definitely would uh would value um and if I would argue that if the right parent Corridor is allowed to fully develop with some of the sycamores that we that Mr wood and I bantered about you know that those build those

1:11:24the Sycamore gets to 60 feet tall and and so if there was a very tall riparian Corridor in there there would be no there would be a 25 foot green wall between the rodoni house and the the proposed project and I I would think that the architect would be free to use

1:11:46good Urban form uh that does not need to pay tribute to the rodoni house with the riparian corridor in between so so that we could get something that uh achieves all the goals we're looking for without being imposing on the Elm Street side so I believe the front of the property

1:12:05is 39 and a half and because of the slope of the parking the the rear of the property is 42. is that I think that was that I'll I'll look at staff I'll take you word for it I thought I thought it was 33 30 36 at the front it was what Mr Campos testified so I'll

1:12:25take a quick look but he had a he had a slide that that indicated it was you're right it's 42 at the peak it's 39 in the street correct that's 39 and a half correct foreign are you saying that you're you're opposed to 39 and a half in the front of the property on the Elm Street

1:12:51pretty much okay on that front edge yeah I think I I believe that um you know the applicants the appellants um you know arguments in their case that uh that the scale of this in relationship to the buildings on the east side of elm um I I felt that that was compelling

1:13:14testimony so um on 1708 Lexington is 39 and 1751 Liberty is 40.

1:13:23um but it's it's the interface with Elm Street that you have an issue with because of what is pre-existing on Elm Street right so so consistent with the questions that I asked last time about what to compare it to as they are comparing it to the buildings next to

1:13:38each other that may not be fair but certainly comparing to the buildings that across the street is fair now the other thing is is that if you might remember there was a slide shown to us I don't know well it'll it's probably here somewhere that I don't know if it was changed resign

1:13:55review or but I believe it was and that was the flat Victorian roof was 35 feet correct which I would have no problem with it and that's part of part of what I just said was that it with with the robust right riparian quarter between the rodoni house and the development

1:14:11there was no need to pay tribute to the redoni house so I I have a question about what you're saying the um with the shading so the the transition area from one zone to another is across Richmond Street isn't it yes it's key it's Elm there but yes it's the same North South Street yes yes and

1:14:43um so that there is the street with there correct so the question I would have is the I don't believe there was anyone from over that way complaining I it still is the testimony that was was provided um in rebuttal to my questions was it was compelling to me that the the

1:15:10transition from with Elm as a retained transition that you would not necessarily want to have a 35-foot house on one side and a 22 or 23 foot house on the other side so that that's that's that it's just my opinion you guys you guys got a whole movie at any time so let me let me finish okay

1:15:31okay so what I'm having a little bit of trouble with on this is um the concept of anywhere on the property or is it the edge of the property or where would you know where would that be because ultimately um that does make a difference in terms of shading so I'm that's really what I just wanted

1:15:57to say go ahead Jan um so I have a question so are you talking about the north side of the property the north side of the prod the house the pre-existing residents on the north side of the building said no is that what you're so so are you talking about the shading

1:16:12for that property because that that's what I just asked in a different way the the context on Elm is of Greater importance to me than the than the shading of the property immediately to the north although this shading to the properly to the north is of of value

1:16:31um and you know it there is very clear guidance in the specific plan but I'm not certain that this we're not in the specific planned zone so that guidance doesn't necessarily uh pertain to this site right and I don't think shading is part of our zoning as it is now so the other

1:16:50thing about the north side property I mean that property has seven little Windows on it four of them are frosted they look like bathroom windows and two on either side have jars of chemicals and cleaning items and I don't know what kind of rooms they are but I mean and they're little Windows

1:17:09that's not the living side of that property the living side of the property is on the other side of the property that's where their Courtyards are I mean right it's not a picture window a living room where I'm conceding that yeah why don't we let others finish and then

1:17:26we'll move on do you have some comments yeah so so with regard to the height I thought a lot about this as well this is one of the key issues I thought were brought up by the appellants um and what uh what struck me was that um if that the project was reviewed and

1:17:42determined to um make the applicants made the request to go above the 35-foot height limit for design reasons and the design review board were supportive of going above that height limit in order to create a better looking project and in into my mind it appeared that the appellants

1:17:58would not be supportive of a three-story project in any case that they were really advocating for a two-story project so in um when thinking about what we what we would get by changing the third that on the project I'm of the mind that we're we would be diluting it a bit if we

1:18:15brought it down to the flat roof and that having this sort of very station on the street the 42 feet across the street I can't remember is it 28 feet or those tall two-story buildings I like the diversity of the height along the street and I'm supportive of keeping the design

1:18:31as it as it is in terms of having gone through the design process and having had a number of our sort of skilled volunteer Architects look at this so I'm supportive of the of allowing them to go up to 42 feet my problem with going to the flat Victorian roof I guess is it's referred

1:18:48to is that there will still be and I'll look at Margaret when I say this there will still be some sort of structure for potential whatever antennas satellites whatever they're going to put there which may put it Beyond maybe Beyond 42 feet I don't know but it'll be a single eyesore structure

1:19:10and so I I tend to agree with you I kind of like the project and the mansard roof and I understand why why it is what it is um I don't have a problem with the the height but I don't have a problem with changing the roof either but I do think that the Architects made a good point

1:19:29that keeping the mansard roof is going to conceal a lot of those things including sole potential for solar solar I don't know what you want to say about whatever they're going to be whatever you would put up for satellite or the the architect did mention that one of

1:19:47the reasons of the mansard roof would be useful is that it would visually screen things that you would often see in flat roofs throughout our city of all kinds of venting and and building code appendices epitances that come out above the roof line and he did also say that they would

1:20:05be able to somehow screen the solar panels if there were some to be added later I don't have any details on how that might look but that was the the statement the act the applicant made and if they were to go to a flat Victorian roof they'd have to put some kind of

1:20:20structure higher than that I think is what was their comment in our packet about that correct and in if I mean again it the restoring the creek would trigger a lot of changes and that it may result in allowing the architect to be more creative with where the units are on the

1:20:47property such that the the front edge and maybe even the north Edge you know could be set back and and still have a mansard roof it just wouldn't be a mansard roof at the at the edge okay so I'm I'm not an architect nor am I hey Mark I think that the project looks much more

1:21:12uh attractive with the mansard roof and I also understand the reasons why it presents some other advantages so I don't mind going all over the height in order to get that value and I agree with that comment so now we'll move on to the next the last one that is parking in traffic

1:21:35we had many uh comments about parking uh the adequacy of the number of parking slots in the in the proposed project um and and the traffic I think the traffic analysis that was done for the SQL document is adequate that the traffic is not is not going to be significantly different as a result

1:21:56of the project and I I believe that uh you know one parking per unit is uh is appropriate I would actually even support less so that if the project came in with say 12 parking spaces and another ground unit that that might actually be uh you know another way for uh the the upper floors

1:22:19to be reduced so they're so that they're not um you know casting quite as much of a shadow so for me I'd rather have less parking than uh than than units on the upper floors uh it would give us another ground level floor unit potentially that that could have uh you know Ada

1:22:41accessibility straight to the street um so so you know for me and I going back to the previous height the height issue the height is not the issue in the interior of the property um and and they're pushing the cree as council member vanessini suggested uh not finishing Bridges suggested pushing

1:23:00the creek to the South might give them a lot more interior that they might be able to do something that that changed the height so the total Heights not the issue and certainly parking is not an issue uh for me I actually think this is a Transit oriented development we should be encouraging

1:23:17minimum amount of parking uh and if that's 15 so be it but it but I would be willing to go below one per unit if the lenders will and we had somebody come in and and testify this that they couldn't necessarily get funding for the project from lenders because the lenders are looking for one

1:23:34per per unit so I don't but I'm but I'm willing with regards to this I'd rather sacrifice parking and get a roof line that is more amenable would like to go next I have no problem with with the current parking one per unit or reducing it I mean we're it's near the bark path it's near the BART

1:23:56station it's near bus lines there's a um a Bikeway right in front of the property on Elm Street um if it's a matter of lending then yeah obviously that might not work for a reduction but I I would be not not opposed to reducing parking below 15.

1:24:16I'd like to Echo that with regard to parking this is a site very close to Bart and we have very scarce land near BART where we want to put as many people as possible who can be adjacent to a multimodal facility adjacent to our great walking trails we have a trail of

1:24:32three blocks from the site to go up motorcycle Hill they can also so they can walk for their Recreation also there are several blocks from the Safeway as well as another grocery store this is just a location where we want to use as much of the land as possible for people

1:24:44rather than cars and we want to leave it up to I think the the Professionals in this field like the lenders the developer to help us understand what what are what are the needs of somebody who wants to purchase this site and how many of them might want to purchase the

1:24:57site without paying for parking because when you buy a unit you're essentially buying the unit and the parking if that if we're requiring them to have one unit for space and with regard to the traffic could I address that one as well um so this this part I also thought the

1:25:11technical documentation on the traffic was very well done and appropriately considered the open opening of the summit charter school which was which is coming online in the fall it's a 14 unit project that intersection handles hundreds of cars from residents up in

1:25:26the hills who are coming through the intersection in order to get to work there's also 60 plus parents who are dropping off their students at my daughter's school and God love all of us but we cause a little bit of traffic at the intersection so I had a very hard

1:25:39time I was not convinced that this project would would make that intersection much worse and the technical documentation that noted all of the pm and am Peak trips confirmed confirm that so I I'm also in agreement that the parking I'm sorry that the traffic presented by this project would be a

1:25:58problem you're in agreement yes okay and I am also but I would like to add one comment and that is that um I think what the type of person that we would like to live in this housing is the type of person for whom this amount of parking works and I think um you know if we put in three parking

1:26:20places per unit then we will attract people who want three parking places per unit but if we put in one then we will attract people who want one and to date we haven't had any problems at least not in my time here in attracting people to to moving in here into Apartments

1:26:40they've gone very quickly and um so anyway so I think this is fine the way it's being proposed and um I think that's your last item okay so now that sums up the what I think were the technical issues that the appellant uh do you have any other issues um I I'm in concurrence with uh council

1:27:02member Friedman that the plan development should be for five years um and and Mr Campos uh agreed to that at time stamp 428 plus the letter from LCA Architects reaffirms that um and the only I mean I do have some depending on how far we get tonight I do have some comments about or suggested

1:27:24additions to the use um agreement and uh and to the plan development agreement but it it depends on how far we go okay Mark do you have any comments no in addition okay Rebecca I'm I don't have comments at this point I guess I'm wondering well I'll wait to hear from others to hear what our net

1:27:48route forward is okay um I think we've done a pretty good job of covering it all I especially want to thank council member Lyman for um the detailed work in the professional thank you professional quality of the work I'm going to lean this way so I can see Mr Biggs I I do want you to know that I

1:28:08really want to support this project in but for One technical issue with regards to the creek and the historical nature of the channel and these were attributes that were on the property at the time of purchase that's that's the one thing but if I hope that you heard many

1:28:25um ideas on how this project could potentially be successful and get us the high density housing that we're looking for in this project so I I'm very hopeful as I said at the beginning I I was hoping that we could provide you the type of input and guidance for a

1:28:42successful project and I'm hoping and I think we have and outside of the one debate item about preserving a stone lined stonewalled Channel or the opportunity to restore the creek I think you've gotten pretty consistent uh guidance from us so I'm pleased with the

1:29:01discussion we've had tonight thank you okay any further comments from anybody I'm wondering looking at this City attorney can we advance this with adding that we would like to have further study on the creek issue um what do you mean by Advance well we approved the uh

1:29:32if if I may council member the first resolution is a resolution approving the mitigated neg deck which is uh you know it's not a product it's not specifically project approval um and if at some point we do come back and and as a result of studies that we get another testimony we this project is

1:29:51is the only project that's feasible we would not as previously testified need to do another SQL document so one of the actions we could do is reaffirm the planning commission's uh approval of the mitigated neck deck we've testified for the second resolution we've all

1:30:06testified that we'd be willing to increase the density on this property and that was our second resolution so with minor tweaking about the language um with regards to the stone line uh Channel um we could potentially move that resolution forward it it's as we get

1:30:23into the the resolutions after that denying the appeal upholding the use permit and moving into the agreement that I feel we we would not be able to go move forward until we get some technical documentations regarding a hydrology report thank you did I summarize that well I

1:30:43don't if you if councilmember Friedman agrees um I my recommendation would not be to do that though unless you're prepared to move forward with approving the project there's no point in increasing the I mean what you'd be doing if you did that was increasing the

1:30:56density allowable on the site under the general plan um without a project associated with it which you can certainly do um but I'm not sure whether or not the count the rest of the council is actually interested in just a general increase in the density on this property

1:31:12without an Associated project and similarly um you there's no you might want to hold off on if if the whole if the majority of the council is interested in further technical study of the ideas that council member Lyman Advanced I would also recommend that you hold off on approving the mitigated

1:31:30negative declaration until you've actually gotten those studies back because it might actually have some impact on the SQL analysis so I think at this point I mean if I could help frame the issue a little bit I mean I think a lot of this comes down to what I mean council member Lyman has

1:31:46certainly suggested what he would like to see further study of and we can work out whether or not that what the right path forward from that is but I mean I don't I think right now you know they're I'm not sure that the rest of the council has really expressed an opinion on that it was it would be

1:32:01equally valid for somebody to say that they were prepared to move forward and just approve the project as is with additional conditions there are other formulations here but um but somebody's got to sort of take another direction or support councilmember Lyman and ask to move

1:32:15forward in that direction because right now it sort of him in his suggestion and I'm not hearing anything from the rest of the council directly on on that point why don't we at this point if that because I think it we should is let the other members of the council Express their

1:32:29opinion one way or the other Mark do you want to start well I I already said that I supported council member lyman's exploration I'm sorry I didn't mean to mischaracterize it as it comes from alignment alone so let me qualify my previous student by saying that I do not I did recognize that hey

1:32:46council member Friedman had already said that he supported further exploration of councilman lyman's concept and for the record I don't kick him under the table I'd love to go next um so in-field development is extremely difficult I well while you work in habitat restoration during the day I

1:33:03work in Infield development and on a daily basis encounter the types of difficulties developers have in putting houses in locations where Services already exist and just as mayor Abelson said every time a city doesn't move forward with a project in an infill location we are contributing to the

1:33:23problem of Greenfield development so while we are trying to preserve um enhancements in our city every time we deny a project we're not contemplating denying a project at this point but every time we deny a project we are essentially pushing houses out into the green fields and taking away

1:33:39habitat in those locations so when I came to the meeting tonight I was prepared very much to support this project putting putting this idea that was put forth by council member Lyman is very interesting because it almost gets us many of the objectives we're trying to get I I

1:33:55cannot support it unless we take the time tonight to just give the developer and the architect a moment to let us know whether or not they've thought about this project because my worst fear of the outcome of this nine years of work is that they look at their budget

1:34:11that they've spent on the eir The Architects the biologists and just say we're just going to wait we're just going to sit on this for a while longer because we don't have any more money available at this moment to pay for the hydrologist or various other types of

1:34:25Specialties so I would like to hear what we're I would like to hear from them what the potential outcomes are we have a project before us that would preserve a historic house that would give us the stone Line Creek which has some historical value that gives us 14 units

1:34:39it gives us a lot of good things that are consistent with our general plan and for our vision of the future for the city that I'm extremely supportive of so we have that we also have another really creative idea but it's at this moment I I would just like to hear whether or not

1:34:53that creative idea has been considered and for some reason it's been rejected maybe it doesn't give them enough units and maybe it's not financially feasible at this moment and they might wait until the market turns even better you know I just want to hear whether or not this

1:35:06has been considered and rejected at this time for for some reason and it's 8 30 this is the second night we've we've done this project I think it it might be a good idea to take a little bit extra time tonight to just hear from them um to know whether or not if we support

1:35:22this idea to go for the creative option and study it whether or not we'd end up with nothing because they would just say we're going to move on to a different project at this point and come back later when they have more more liquid money I'd like to hear what the response

1:35:36would be so just so we know what our potential outcomes are well I think that you know you've probably heard that you've got a lot of support here uh for this project I don't know if it's even fair to ask the applicant to comment about this I mean we have to move forward with the hydrology report

1:35:57I'm totally in favor of that I think this is a good compromise but I don't know if it's fair to him to actually put him on the spot and maybe he has to sit down and pencil out I don't know if he has that answer today I feel like we kind of threw you a little bit of a

1:36:12curveball but I think overall um you know I would deny the appeal and move forward with the project because I think we're really interested in in this and I think you you've already got I hope that you already understand and have that message from us and I mean you would move forward now

1:36:31with the density and the height and um but I don't know if it's fair to have him come up and I mean maybe he wants to sit down and I don't know that he's going to walk away if he doesn't talk tonight I mean and I don't know if we can open the public hearing to one to

1:36:44one no I don't think we could so I I would I would suggest that we take the time and open it up to him and whoever else wants to make a comment he could limit the subject of the public comment but you'd need to hear allow other people to speak to the same topics that

1:36:59are raised and asking that question of the applicant i i would support uh opening up the questions and comments solely on the issue of the creek and the historic Stone lined Waterway thank you okay make that emotion okay that's a motion I I can I can support a limited topic uh opening the public

1:37:28hearing to a limited topic and it would be the issue of Creek restoration versus preservation of the Stonewall channel is that a second yeah is that a second okay ready to vote all in favor of doing this was just said the motion was made by council member Friedman seconded by

1:37:49council member Lyman please say aye aye believe that was unanimous okay so with that we need pardon we cannot be repeated to make sure that we captured okay uh the motion was to let's see if I can do it right okay uh the motion is to reopen the public hearing for The Limited uh topic

1:38:13of discussion of the um channel the um rock what do you call it rocks online Channel Stone line channel do the riparian channel I get that right versus a restoration of the restoration of say those words again please restoration of a riparian channel so the topic is very

1:38:39narrow okay um I believe that's it and the emotion was made by Friedman seconded by Lyman vote was unanimous is that good enough for repetition okay but now we need a mo is that a motion to open the public hearing again that was it so now we're ready for speakers so anyone who's interested in

1:39:06speaking um can either get a public speaker slip or what they can also do is fill it out afterwards and maybe if I could ask for a show of hands of who wants to speak so we can get an idea of volume okay there aren't that many so why don't we just have people um line up line up uh we'll start with

1:39:32the project applicant if that's is that right is it possible Carl Campos architect is it possible to take a five minute recess so I guess Mr Biggs and how about 10. that'd be great yes so we can come back prepared to five yes five come on you're on what happened to Margaret

1:44:35just stepped out she's she's going to make some copies of a document for us to distribute to you do we need should we wait or no I'm ready to go okay questions for me okay well so this so we've opened the public hearing thank you we finished our recess and so the questions are from the

1:44:58council okay I guess the question I guess I'll just say we're we're a friendly Bunch um we're up here talking about your project and I think my intention was to give you just an opportunity to react to what you've heard tonight in terms of the study of uh restoration of the creek

1:45:15and I'd like to hear whether or not that was studied in any way or if you have any comments to make as to whether or not there's a fatal flaw with what's being discussed as we're going to ask we're potentially asking you to do these studies and and come back to us with

1:45:29something new yeah I got I gotta say I'm shocked and stunned actually we um Mr Big has been on this project for nine ten years he spent well over six seven hundred thousand dollars I'm the fourth architect we first came to the city we were told to put the creek in a

1:45:47pipe continue the pipe so we came forth with designs previous designs were done that way and then we came in with a design of this that we were told that the creek was a creek and I presented that in my presentation so we have an historic document says that the rock

1:46:01Line Creek was pretty special we were told that it was special so no we we we absolutely did not look at because we were told that the Crete Channel had to be preserved in his face in its place with a rock lining in it and uh the house had to be preserved and so we we took the position that we

1:46:21embraced that that it was an important resource to the city and The Rock lining was special not seen uh anywhere locally etc etc so we did not consider tearing out the creek rerouting it and moving it and and making a new a new Creek Channel which we we think would take significant

1:46:43efforts through the we're almost done we had we got a good letter from Regional water quality we're we're approved through fishing and Wildlife we're almost there and we think we've done exactly as we've been directed by the reports from the city that we Mr Biggs paid for historic reports

1:47:03Etc uh and so I'm a little I'm it's a little bit disconcerting to come to the last minute thank you for saying you'll support the project uh everything you said regarding density and height and mass and bulk and Etc is is what we would hope we're hoping for um the realignment we're creating a new

1:47:23Creek area is is expensive we got to start all over again with regional water quality and Fish and Wildlife and they will have uh they will have issues I'd like for Mr wood uh our biologists to uh to discuss the the uh the attributes of our plan and uh and where we go from

1:47:43here well thank you very much Commissioners for your uh deliberate deliberations and I really appreciate the uh uh I love to do drawings and sketches and think about ways to move things around and uh uh you know what can I do my my little pie in the sky sketches but of course I always

1:48:10have to come back to reality and the reality is always it's the agencies tell us minimize impacts and while a complete realignment while the restoration of that commissioner Lyman proposes is a an attempt to restore sort of a natural hydrologic function in a limited Channel

1:48:34it still is a complete realignment of a channel and uh the issue of the historic nature of the stone line Channel notwithstanding we know that when we get into complete realignments of channels we have a lot more rigorous review by the Regulatory Agencies Corps of

1:48:52Engineers water board Department of Fish and Game it's certainly permittable that we do do that but we have a context of a project in the context of what is the uh kind of a cost benefit analysis of that level of work relative to the site the context of the site and

1:49:15in fact what we've proposed and so when I was asked to come on and look at the the project and start to put together the permitting documents one of the first things I said is we need to dress it up just exactly what what you're proposing and working in the confines of this

1:49:34having to preserve so we assume having to preserve this rock climbing Channel what can we do that increases uh structural diversity of native habitat increases species diversity of of native plant species along the channel provides some of the habitat values that we associate with

1:49:54riparian habitat that is shading of the water surface against structural diversity for wildlife that's what we've attempted to do the the figure that was passed around that is from the deed restriction document that we drew up identifying the native habitat areas

1:50:14along the channel Corridor itself as well as that branched out part along the western boundary where the C3 detention basins are we have along a total of 16 native trees that are going to be planted along their uh certainly the the Sycamore can be changed although we have a eight foot

1:50:36wide planter spot right there but we can put anything in there um but we've got 16 tree native trees six along the channel itself 149 shrubs and and monocots all or grasses and uh uh uh uh uh all Native indigenous to the Watershed that would be planted along the uh along the

1:51:00channel 85 would be along the channel itself so that was that was where that was where we came to this to this project this is a resource we know from our training and our experience you try not to mess too much with the channels because it comes back to to haunt you

1:51:19both in terms of the time needed to get a project through the permitting process but then also you know for example a realignment of this will that the water board will hit us with 10 years of monitoring for for that for something like that um so we've by taking uh not having not putting the

1:51:43channel in a pipe that's already three gold stars with the Regulatory Agencies we're not even going to talk about that uh and the only men the only impacts are the uh construction of the new Downstream head wall and then you need to wrap up I'm sorry I'm sorry you need

1:51:58to wrap up well I'm sorry I beg your pardon I didn't know I was on a clutch okay and it was unavailable for questions if you want okay thank you um next speaker does anybody else want to speak yeah we should have mine up no anyone just all line up hi my name is Clay Smith I'm a resident

1:52:21at [address removed] right around the corner from this proposed development um I just have to say that um there are some people here tonight I didn't know this was going to be a public forum again tonight I think there would be more people here if they had known that was the case

1:52:44I do agree with council member Friedman and that I do think there should be a hydrology report this is a creek once this is done it's done and you won't be able to undo it I think it's too important to resource I know this has been going on for a long time I myself have just been involved in

1:53:03this since April and speaking at the planning committee meetings and before you all on June 2nd but again this is extremely important I think it needs to be looked at longer because like I said once you do this it can't be undone we're talking about the future of El

1:53:24Cerrito a lot of citizens who aren't here to express themselves tonight I appreciate the being able to comment thank you good evening mayor Ableton members of the council and City staff my name is Tom Panos I live at [address removed] and El Cerrito uh I'd like to thank you all

1:53:48for your deliberations this evening I know that Mr Lyman and probably the rest of you are curious about my thoughts on his proposal um as we all know this project has had me very conflicted but I've consistently said that I've been supporting the staff and supporting developer on this project

1:54:06um still I'm I have to say I'm swayed my councilman council members lyman's comments that perhaps the cultural resource is a less important resource here uh we still have I've crawled under there 10 feet of uh the stone Line Creek under the building on the Liberty Street

1:54:29side of the fence and you wouldn't hear any objections from me if we went forward with a mandarin Creek to this property and I basically I agree with the council's other findings thank you hi uh mayor Abelson and fellow council members my name is howdy Gowdy I live at

1:54:58[address removed] so I want to compliment you on your you know thoughtful proposal and I think it is a really important um suggestion to make that that we make a real effort to restore and enhance these waterways because that's it's in your own documents it's in the 1995 Watership

1:55:23goal statement it's in the um you know it's in the zoning it's in the um uh the creek overlay District so that that um stated goal of restoring Creek waterways is something that is a guiding document for you already and you need to be adhering to it and I would argue so far

1:55:46as you know this plan development is really the back door around those those regulations and goals and so I think you need to think really hard about that plan development vote because you need to see if you can really make all those findings and I would argue you know

1:56:05based on um council member lyman's suggestions that you know this doesn't meet the standards that you need to meet for the plan development agreement it does not provide the the public benefit all that has been pointed out for the public benefit are the 14 additional units and

1:56:26that's just not enough it's it there's so many better places to do that this is a unique site with unique resources and the public benefit to be had here is really restoring that Creek to its potential you know you you mentioned Greenfield development it's like yes we

1:56:42don't want Greenfield development elsewhere but this is a green field development in El Cerrito this is a unique place that doesn't exist in that kind of character and so imposing on The Creeks any further rather than really expanding their value and and making it

1:56:58a viable amenity to the community is is the important thing to consider here so I strongly urge you to reject the proposed development on the ground that they do not meet the criteria to um to really you know do what's right for that site so I'm a little concerned by the process

1:57:19tonight I mean I think you know we're struggling with this battle of um of just the topic I heard other topics being discussed I think the process is is important to this discussion you know you we have this momentum that we must make a decision tonight and that's not true I

1:57:46mean I think the comments you made on the creek back on topic are worthy of further study and we can't just shoehorn a few little Band-Aids on something and try to move on we actually need to say no this doesn't work as is and we need to do better thank you thank you are

1:58:05there any other members of the public who would like to speak so my name is Robin Mitchell I live at [address removed] and I was very excited about councilman lyman's proposal I think at a design review meeting maybe in 2011 I sort of had a similar proposal but there's a creek running through it

1:58:33why not you know make to take total advantage of that and really you know use it as a feature as a real design feature not just a little channelized um channelized system the way it is now so anyway I support um the restoration of the creek I think it's a very creative solution I think

1:58:53you would need I in favor of doing the hydrology um study and I think that once you decide to do that you may not be able to get the height and the density that you want but I think it would still it's still going to be a really nice project with whatever the density you can put on it

1:59:12because the creek is going to really make that project very special people are going to want to live there no matter what I think if that Creek is restored properly it's going to be a real enhancement to the project can I ask a quick question of council council person Lyman just a question um

1:59:30and I think that's irregular isn't it I'm not sure asked our City attorney he's proposing a creek on the property a restored Creek I I wasn't clear on the setbacks from the center line of the creek well I'll just how about if I just give you a technical answer I don't

1:59:44believe Mr Campos used all of his time okay here we go sure sorry what was it what was it if you would like I didn't get that was it 20 feet or was it 20 feet on either side no it's a total width of between 20 and 25 feet and in essence the setback Center Line there is there's no center line so you

2:00:03could go up to the edge of that that that band as demonstrated by some of the photographs I showed including Baxter Creek and cornices Creek there are structures that effectively go up to that that riparian Corridor and and so it's the corridor that was uh being

2:00:20shown um and it was 20 to 25 feet wide depending on how you calculated side total total total so it'll be ten feet or 15 and 5 or 10 and 10 or yeah taking taking uh Mr Wood's own testimony that 10-foot offsets from a center line is a typical offset that that's consistent

2:00:39with his own testimony so I was using a number like that it's also consistent with the creek or creek diagram in our specific plan which shows is 20 feet so I got it thank you okay are there any other members of the public who would like to speak like just but Mr Campos just to make sure

2:01:01we still need the technical documents because it might be that it needs to be 27 and a half feet more or less you know from the outer Bend to Outer Bend so that's where the hydrology study would would allow you to and you might be able to come back and say it's 18 feet

2:01:15right I mean so so I don't know what the answer is okay I'm asking if there are any other members of the public who would like to make a comment this time and then things since I don't see any members of the public who would like to speak at this point yes sorry

2:01:39um okay at some point we do have to move we do have to end we do have to make a decision okay so with that I believe the process is that we would move to close the public hearing second okay all in favor that was motioned by Lyman seconded by Friedman excuse me I'm tired

2:02:03um all in favor of closing the public hearing please say aye aye any opposition abstentions motion cares unanimously okay now we're back in Council discussion here we are okay so Rebecca you were the one who requested that we do this so do you want to lead the conversation yes that was thank you

2:02:26for having that um taking the time to do that that was instructive and I think it did give the applicants a chance as well as the appellants a chance to kind of react to to a drawing which always evokes a lot of I think comments as soon as any drawing is put forward that's

2:02:42what happens um I'm I'm I still believe the project should go forward as proposed and I'm gonna kind of go through why I think that is we've already talked about the height and the density um and our support for those sorts of elements of the project I I believe that

2:02:58the proposal it was put forward which would dedicate the house to a public historic use as well as allowing the pocket park in the front of the property and preserving the stone Line Creek are all extremely valuable amenities what this alternative proposal may come down to is

2:03:19a creek that runs across a private property that has somewhat more habitat value than the habitat value that Mr Woods described that we would gain by having the enhancements to the stone Line Creek so when I'm thinking about this very very difficult decision I know all of us have spent

2:03:37many many hours thinking about this project and going back and forth on where we're going to come down with those on the scales of what is the best outcome for the public in my view the public historic house and the pocket park and the enhanced uh Stone Creek and the

2:03:57enhancements along the border of the property and a project that we know will go forward in five years if we go forward with moving the development agreement to no more than five years is the preferred outcome to an extremely uncertain process where we may end up

2:04:14with a marginally better biologically functioning Creek and an uncertain outcome to me is too much to risk given all of the benefits of the project that we have before us tonight so I'm in favor of supporting the project as is Jan British helmet um I actually would like to move forward

2:04:37with the hydrology report and then have that um and we revisit this and find out if it's um to see if it's feasible at all are you suggesting that we continue this meeting till that's done or how would that work all right looking at our City attorney um I mean I've certainly got some my ideas

2:05:02which I outlined earlier um I think why don't we can I suggest suggest that you hear from the rest of the council and then and then why don't and see where you are and then we can outline what the process might impact their vote though okay well okay that's fair

2:05:19um so um there isn't an express provision in the municipal code for um sending this back to the Planning Commission except for instances in which there's error so um to me this is either going to stay with the city council or you're going to be in a position to have to potentially

2:05:40deny the project and tell them to to uh with direction to go work on on this issue of of providing an alternative location or I'm sorry for for looking at doing um Creek restoration instead of preserving and enhancing the the channelized creek so what you could do

2:05:58if you wanted to keep it with the council for now is I would suggest um reopen the public hearing continue it to receive additional information and the information would include hydrology report that would examine um Creek restoration along the lines outlined by council member Lyman plus I

2:06:15believe that Ms Kavanaugh Lynch and his mins may have some additional things that they would suggest accompanying that just so that there would be a so that what came back to the council would actually be um provide you with enough information to know about the viability of this

2:06:32Creek restoration because it's um it may not be just hydrology there may be other elements about whether or not things are actually functional on the property the reason I'm suggesting opening the public hearing and continue it is so that you then have the opportunity to receive the additional

2:06:45information and take that into account and making a decision about how to proceed with the project that to me would be the best way forward if you want to receive more information along those lines before making a decision okay so I think we're ready for council

2:07:02member Friedman to make a comment um would it be possible to take a motion of the sense of the body in support of the project with then moving forward with a formal uh motion to continue the public hearing just so we go on record on the issues we agree on even though I know we have a

2:07:32series of resolutions we have to pass before the the it goes forward you mean the non-creak issues yeah exactly right um I think this goes back to the the school of do we need to make a motion of the things we agree on so that there's staff consensus but I'm not certain that

2:07:51we need to do that because we're not giving direction to staff on those items um if you were actually giving if you were actually giving direction then yes I would I would I would say make whatever form it is preferably in the form of motions voting on individual

2:08:06items in terms of providing Direction but it sounds like um what's this remember this is all stemming from councilmember Bridges question what happens if we want to get more information about hydrology so um so starting with that if you want to get more information I've outlined a

2:08:24process if you additionally wanted to do a series of straw votes or get a sense of the body of where you are on other aspects of the project that's fine but it it but to answer your question it's not necessary to actually move things forward because everything's

2:08:39just going to be on pause while you get that additional information it's mine intention was to just not require more staff work and on the issues that we already have indicated a consensus on that the only thing that I would direct staff to do is to get more information on the creek restoration

2:09:04option by working with the developer is that kind of this this yeah so so there's um one move forward one Creek study report over there and then one over you're on the side of the creek council member Lyman I I would like to have a uh about Mr wood in his time stamp testimony of 140

2:09:31who said uh he would be able to do a watershed analysis which is not exactly a hydrology analysis but then also a hydrology analysis so those are the two that are related to the the determining the the capacity of the width of this of this channel um so I I would be of the camp of doing

2:09:50additional scientific study to analyze the possibility of doing Creek restoration um I don't know if you're exactly answering the question that's being asked are you answering the same question as the others are I hope so yes okay thank you yes to hydrology and

2:10:07Watershed you know okay um so we do have a majority for that um so okay can I just I'm sorry to interject but I think that um could I ask um Ms minson Miss Kavanaugh Lynch to weigh in because so because this goes to both councilmember lymans and councilmember Friedman's

2:10:26points I think before we move before the council moves forward I think it would be helpful to hear from them about what they think everything that would be necessary for additional study to actually answer this question because it's not just about the creek the creek

2:10:38has implications for the rest of the project and they need more information than that to be able to advise you when you say them you mean staff staff okay now how do we go about doing that is that something we just have to I think they can give us time I think that

2:10:54they can give you right I think they can tell you right now what else they they think would need to be analyzed in order to properly address this question so then we turn to staff they're looking at each other um we might have to tag team this a little bit as we're thinking on the spot

2:11:12so there's several issues that come to mind in terms of what you would expect the results of a watershed analysis and hydrology study to teach us in term u in terms of being able to make the decision um there's also issues in terms of are you looking for what the alternate so let's

2:11:31say it takes 25 I think there's several things as you know probably better than I do council member Lyman that when you take out the engineered structure what is what are the different flood and hydrology issues what are the different going to council member benicini's what

2:11:46would it mean for Neighbors depending on where it is and from my experience at Baxter one of the interesting restoring Baxter Creek one of the interesting things was we did have the whole site and so as that channel evolved it was okay because there was not so much near it so setbacks didn't

2:12:01become important because it was open space in Parkland so as you know when there's structures nearby there's different considerations so I think what's coming to mind is site layout so depending depending on what that outcome is you we would need a new site layout

2:12:17what is the new project I know you did some back of the envelope work on that but the Architects would actually have to get into that the other issue is something that council member benicini just talked about also what is the actual um biological benefit what are what are you

2:12:32getting by having more of that contact are you ending up so I think there's certain decisions about what what do you want to know from that as you know you can Define so the threshold question is what is the sinuosity of the creek for this reach and that actually is

2:12:48a pretty straightforward calculation so looking at the at the slope and the amount of space you have without imagining anything happening upstream or Downstream Andrew Gooding Andrew who is it that worked on uh oh I think Andrew getting oh I drew getting from the restoration Design Group I mean

2:13:05he'll he'll he'll tell you what he thinks the sinuosity would be and that starts to Define your Meander belt and your Meander belt is the distance between the two red lines essentially um and if he comes back and tells you the sinuosity is 40 feet then it's a it

2:13:22it's just it's taking up too much of the property and even I would concede that that's that that's not a fair thing but if the sinusity comes back a lighter number then we can proceed on to the to the other things because I agree with you um there is a stepwise aspect of this and I

2:13:39I would I suspect um having worked with a number of different Creeks that's a sinuosity on this is going to be fairly tight that is not going to have a a large amplitude um and and therefore it it potentially will have uh the the possibility of fitting within this then then there's

2:14:00the uh council member benicini asked for a cost benefit analysis or a financial feasibility at the last of the June 2nd Meeting those those start penciling in to the number of units uh that that potentially are necessary to underwrite this um in my experience a creek like this is

2:14:18going to run between you mean additional units right right well how many units are are feasible once you start dedicating this you know it my experience is that I'm not understanding what you're saying are you saying the financial feasibility is uh needs to we need to know how many units are are

2:14:35feasible acquired right required to make the project pencil yes thank you um you know and so that could be something that is is required once this Inuit proves to be feasible my experience is that the the that a channel like this is going to run between 250 and 500 a linear foot to

2:14:57restore so you're looking at forty to sixty thousand dollars worth of of Creek the pipe the to move the head wall one way or the other uh to the South or to the north you know is going to run some number of dollars per linear foot so that so that needs to be function

2:15:12factored into the feasibility analysis um who knows with some of the testimony we gave tonight of reduced parking requirements um you know they may be able to get another one of those four hundred thousand dollar ground units in um that sell like that based on the

2:15:29testimony we had last time so you know it could easily pay for itself and become a an amenity and maybe the project is named the rodini creek uh project who knows what it's named so you're correct there's a number of things but the sinuosity is the first thing that that would be could be

2:15:49verified pretty quickly visibility study however as well in terms of what the results of the results the the other side of the science if the applicant if the applicant is willing to do that I mean it's obviously not a public project so we can't force them to do that

2:16:09um then the other thing um which um Miss Kavanaugh Lynch and I have been discussing is is sequa and I think like you said that would also be a step depending upon um if how much everything would be combined and or separated but depending on the results I mean it would be a revised

2:16:27project description for the purposes of sequa and looking at the historic structure and obviously as the applicant pointed out for the permitting agencies correct for from the permitting agencies it'd probably be self-mitigating so certainly from a SQL perspective it

2:16:40might be less than significant even with the proposed Creek adjustments um that's just off the hand uh thought because uh you're taking a rock line Channel and you're actually creating a greater amount of habitat so so I think it'll be self-mitigating from any type

2:16:57of SQL analysis with regards to the creek however the rockline channel may be a significant impact in the cultural resources so I agree that the cultural resources analysis potentially would have to be done um all all the other in the initial study the all the other ones air quality

2:17:14probably no different traffic no different uh so there's a number of of analysis that would not need to get done on and I believe it would just be the cultural resources because I think that biology would end up being no different or better just my I'm not a secret practitioner but I've

2:17:33been around SQL for 25 years or almost 30 years so I believe that there would have to be some additional analysis of supplementing the current document to make it whole lastly then in terms of again making it if this was the the direction if this were to be the direction of council

2:17:52um and as the City attorney just pointed out if the project approval would be would stay with Council the other item that would potentially be needed as a result of the sinuosity study and the feasibility would be the resulting project if you would have to see the types of things you know how

2:18:12the design would change and how other things would change you just pointed out would parking change would the layout change would something else change and so at some point that would also have to be something brought to you for approval yeah let's let's take one step at a time

2:18:24um you know from a obviously even SQL might change because the height might go down and might not be an issue there or you know I don't know what the final project would be but let's see what the sinuosity would be and what the Meander Corridor would be and if that matches

2:18:40the the square footage that was in the prior uh project and and uh the figure that we were given tonight um with regards to the the amount of ground that would be put into a deed restriction um I've seen nothing in our our documentation that that identifies what

2:19:00the where the deed restriction would be filed or who would hold it or or even what it attempts to accomplish but this is a significant amount on the ground that that goes into deed restriction and it's actually probably a greater amount of square footage than what has been

2:19:15presented in tonight for a potential uh Corridor so I I'm not I don't know where this document gets used um it's not clear to me where this this document gets filed but it it turns out this is even a greater amount of ground than I had anticipated was available for this

2:19:35type of Creek restoration I believe it was required by a proficient Wildlife for the permit so it's it's an efficient Wildlife requirement great thank you so I'm I have a I guess a question about process so what you we started out talking about in the latest discussion is

2:19:58um follow up with staff and so I don't know if that was to give staff Direction about what we wanted done or if it was to but um yeah I don't I don't I don't know if we already have uh a a hydrologist under contract um that could provide us some input but but I'd be willing to make a motion to

2:20:24open the hearing so we can get additional input and ask staff to try and get this this answer for us in a timely manner on regarding the sinuosity and and if the sinuosity turns out to be one way or the other then we can potentially start moving in doing the additional SQL

2:20:43or doing additional uh conceptual drawings doing Financial feasibility so I'm not sure I would I was wanting the question I have is um councilmember Lyman you said that Loosely what you said is that if it costs there's there's a point at which if it costs so much that you would

2:21:04realize it was too much to be costing to um I think I I think to put it fairly council member venison you said it very well very eloquently at some point the project is not financially feasible and we continue as council member Friedman has said more than once we continue to

2:21:25have non-productive ground and so at that point um you know it there is a I could be weighed into trying to get this into be productive ground um I'm not fundamentally opposed to the project because the project can do a great deal to this the cultural resources that are there can the project

2:21:49as proposed does a fantastic job of maintaining the fabric of the both the property and the house I think that the creek restoration is of greater value and so I do not it's an either or if you choose the historic cultural resources path you will completely permanently prevent the creek

2:22:11restoration path and and I'm not prepared today to make a decision that prevents the creek restoration because I feel the creek restoration is more valuable not sure you answered my question but I think I'll we'll move on does anybody else have anything they want to say

2:22:30how many commotion that we keep the public hearing open in order to get the information regarding the feasibility of Creek restoration on the site second okay um to repeat the motion uh did you get first of all did you get it I don't have to repeat okay thank you so it was

2:22:54council member Friedman made the motion seconded by council member Lyman okay and does Staff feel that that's enough information so I just want to question just if I if the fact a little bit um um it seems that there's a couple steps and we're kind of going tenuously to the

2:23:13next question which is the the discussion of the hydrology report and this um uh specific and and Watershed analysis is of those two the two studies you'd like to have brought back initially but they're obviously at some point feasibility studies you know there's

2:23:31others let's see what that one does first so so to bring back those two reports and if that provides enough information you might Act take an action at that evening otherwise you might want to have a feasibility study brought back as well or would you like all three studies

2:23:47brought back at so you have I'm just trying to there's metrics that you're making a decision on and I want to make sure that we bring back the right information so that you have the metrics you need to depends on when you want to bring it back I guess feasibility study might take longer

2:24:02because if the creek is viable you may need to figure out what if it pencils with 12 units 13 units or 14 units well and one of the 400 square foot units are they 800 square foot eight units one of the uh items that are that is my mind is the the house the Reconstruction of the

2:24:19historic building is also I've been told a couple hundred thousand dollars correct so um maybe even a is a preliminary feasibility study of what it would cost to refurbish or restore the home as good since the creek is now kind of off the would be out of this discussion

2:24:38there's probably other hard item costs that the applicant already has that maybe they would be interested in sharing with you because if you're looking to see if this project is financially infeasible there are some hard costs I know they have identified already and and despite all of our other

2:24:53comments if they came back with 15 new units and could meet all of our other comments with regards to form and parking and all those things if they needed an extra door to sell I'm not certain I'd be opposed to that so so I you know we've already said that we will all of us

2:25:12would be willing to pass an amendment changing allowing a greater number of units on that site so we aren't there yet we still have a project that's been proposed to us we have I'm not prepared to vote on that project tonight without additional information bring us back the

2:25:28additional information David the additional information is a feasibility analysis of of the current project or the future project I don't know which feasibility analysis you would you would be bringing back just to make sure is it hecress what we're looking for the hydrologic study is is

2:25:45it I just want to make sure we are getting the right thing so you're just looking at what the dynamic flow what the flow based on those those modeling from that point once you see what the results or that of that are and what uh hair grows may not be the best model for

2:25:59this particular one there may be some less complicated models that this phase that would give us the answer we're looking for at which point once um so it does sound like there is a bit of info in terms of you are looking still for what the outcome of that whatever the results of

2:26:14that are and what it means for the project so I have a question the thing I'm concerned about is um what I would not like to see happen is that um studies that we're just talking about happen they come back with the results and then we say now I want another study

2:26:39they do that study and then they come back and then we say I want two more studies you know in other words we should I we need to set up I don't want to set up a process that goes on forever um where we just keep going back and forth so how do we avoid that um we could we could ask them to provide

2:27:02us a proposal for a restored Creek including uh you know the number of units that would be left on the property and and you know what that would cost and and we could then factor that into the cost benefit analysis of a restored Creek which is which is one of the items

2:27:19that council member benicini talked about on June 2nd a true cost benefit study I mean council member venison you must have asked it three different ways because I did listen to the tape at least two more times and you asked both the talent and the applicant you know

2:27:35what is the benefit we're losing by not restoring the creek we didn't get an answer that night we still don't have an answer and that's all I'm trying to get to is what's the cost of restoring the creek maybe a cost in in loss of density maybe a cost of just paying from you know

2:27:54costing the project more to restore the creek it may be a loss of the rodini rodoni house as a as an amenity uh public amenity because it's it's being used as a residential unit and I heard them say that the rodoni house could potentially be two units um you know so that there's we don't

2:28:13know so unless you're asking me to to ask the applicant or require the applicant to come back with a full project it's going to be stepwise if the applicant is willing to to you know spend time and money and and for put something together when potentially uh the feasibility the the simple

2:28:35feasibility analysis could eradicate that I I don't know I time is money I understand time is money and and if if we can do this All in two weeks get a good feasibility analysis of an alternative project compared to the feasibility analysis of this current project get some sort of hydrology

2:28:57number in front of us that'd be great I'm willing to make it you know I'm willing to to study this um I've spent a lot of time on this um I'm willing to put more time in on it uh to to make a good decision okay I don't know that that answers my question but um how does staff have any

2:29:15idea how long it would take to get a report back here you know vaguely no no and we'd have to put out an art we'd have to get the right consultant get an RFQ and choose somebody to do it and the Fourth of July coming up so and it could be below it could be below 20 000.

2:29:35question of staff foreign not at this time okay okay so it'll be a while I is what I took from what you're saying because of things like the holiday and process okay and we would initiate it as soon as possible and try to expedite it and move it forward is okay so if I

2:29:59remember correctly we have not yet voted correct yes correct that's correct okay so are there any more comments before voting okay and do you have the question down for the vote and uh let me repeat I and who said made the first and who made the second moved by councilmember Freeman second and by

2:30:21councilmember Lyman to keep the public hearing open to to get information regarding the feasibility in the form of a hydrology or sinuosity report of Creek restoration at the site is that correct I think so that's good I'll just make I want one comment sorry and I'm I'm gonna

2:30:38vote no but I'm going to say I have the highest hopes that this is going to be a ex expeditious project on staff's part and is going to bring us back good information but I'm going to vote no okay so ready to vote all in favor aye aye no no no and that so there are three yes votes

2:31:00they are council member Bridges council member Lyman and council member Friedman and the no votes for council member benicini and mayor Abelson okay so with that we have we reopened the public hearing and we're going to now continue the meeting is this correct a

2:31:23City attorney somebody took a vote we were inside of the public hearing so now we're continuing the public hearing so yes you've continued the public hearing to receive the specific report ident or reports identified in the motion okay so now I need a little guidance from you on

2:31:43how to move this meeting to the next right um tonight right tonight I don't know whether or not that I think it would be appropriate for you to ask whether or not they're members of the public who want to address you I mean I realize it's awkward but um but even though the public hearings

2:31:58closed because of the continued nature of it appearing on two agenda items I just wanted to make sure that that within the bounds of the brown act the people weren't being denied an opportunity to address the council they've had an opportunity to speak to you previously at the prior meeting and

2:32:14they've had another opportunity to speak on a limited set of issues tonight I think it would be appropriate just to see if there are members of the public who would like to address you on the project at which point you can adjourn you can I don't know after we're talking

2:32:25next yeah after which we wouldn't after which you learned yes okay um are there any members of the public who would like to address us on this issue as was just mentioned please um how do you go for it okay uh thank you council members and I'm Mary Wilson my name is howdy Gowdy I

2:32:48live at [address removed] um I appreciate your um intention to take a more deliberate look at at a better outcome for the site I think that's a really important decision this is otherwise a very fast process through here and I realize there are competing interests of let's get

2:33:07something done but I you know these things last for 50 to 100 years they have big impacts and it's really about the quality of our city and I appreciate you you know taking the effort to make it the best outcome that it can be because ultimately this is about you

2:33:22know not just getting more units so that you know the Next Generation has a place to live it's making this place a place worth living and so I really hope you Embrace that idea that we really need to make this the best project possible and so I'm really grateful that you've

2:33:38you've taken that approach I'll just point out a couple things um you know Financial feasibility was was mentioned I think that's important we don't want to you know push this in a direction that that it can't happen but I think the good news is we appear to have a really strong

2:33:57ground to stand on there because the developer has already given a very generous uh offer of of donating a restored house which is I mean they said two hundred thousand dollars to restore it but there's there's a lost opportunity for them to actually sell it as a real unit so I don't know what the

2:34:17real value of that is but I'm guessing it's over four hundred thousand dollars right there so that's a lot of money that could restore a creek instead of be a voluntarily donated house and I think that's important because as generous as that offer was it was an empty you know

2:34:35offer in terms of there was no one ready to receive it and so it would have been misguided for the city to you know take up that offer without knowing if someone was actually going to make make good on that opportunity so this is is a really good situation for us in that it shows

2:34:52that the developers got some margin to play with in their financial feasibility despite what they had said earlier where they couldn't make a penny if they didn't have all the units available they said they'd be willing to donate that unit away which means to me that they

2:35:07could afford to restore this Creek which I think would be the best outcome and I hope you study that and determine that that's the direction you want to go so thank you thank you are there any other members of the public who would like to speak on this item okay

2:35:23um not seeing any we will now move on to the next item which is uh policy matters and there are not any uh so we'll move on to item number eight which is council local and Regional liaison assignment reports didn't mean Solid Waste I forgot to report last time on the solid waste meeting that occurred

2:35:49in June we did meet we did pass our budget for uh for the next fiscal year the budget does include the director and two additional two and a half additional staff and that was our principal action we did have a a lively discussion about the future of the Waste Authority

2:36:16no conclusions were made about it but everyone is trying to figure out if Richmond's going to continue to participate Richmond council members are inclined to to continue participating in the in the jpa going forward we did um uh set for a work a work study for

2:36:38the um rates uh the rate modeling uh how the rate model works and and how the rate model is uh could could work uh for setting rates and uh that is going I believe is going to be set for August and the other action item that we took was to initiate a waste characterization

2:37:00study which uh we did not authorize the contract for that but we did ask staff to get make sure that we got bids for it and moved forward so those those are the that's the report out from Waste Management okay um I have a few things I would like to mention at this time

2:37:25um I believe that I have not mentioned this before but if I have I apologize and that is that the Contra Costa Transportation Authority which I'm a member representing West County um the um received the project of the Year award for from the California Transportation

2:37:51Foundation which is a very prestigious honor for the authority and I also want to mention that I just attended policy committee meetings of the league of California cities the last this last week and I was attended two meetings and one was on administrative services and one was on community

2:38:17services and we also had a report on the budget and which I will get to the city of clerk if necessary or maybe you already have it and could forward it to the council sure put in our packet and the members of the public would also be able to see it that way yes of course

2:38:35okay and um one of the interesting things that came out at one of the policy committees I attended Community Services was a report which was done by actually Cal Fire on a budget item that had just passed I think the day before it was discussed so it's very preliminary and they really

2:38:55don't have any specific details except to say that there's going to be a lot of money for urban forestry as they called it under the carbon cap and trade program so that's actually very exciting news because it's the sort of program that in fact we if we are able to

2:39:20financially do it we would qualify for and there it's but it's a little bit different it isn't just planning a lot of little trees uh it looks beyond that to maintaining the trees the you know one of the problems that we've had is that we plant those trees and then they

2:39:38need to be taken care of and what's really exciting about this program is they recognize that and um so I'm I'm really hopeful that will I be able to take once they actually you know develop the specifics of the program we'll be able to take advantage of the program and use it to actually

2:39:57create what they're interested in creating which is the um you know the the actual if you would look down from the sky you would see green uh so masses of green so that we have the carbus carbon sequestration going on not just a lot of little trees with a few leaves on them up in you know up in

2:40:21the air so this is really exciting news they seem to really the people who were there seemed who seem to be the ones who are going to be developing a lot of this program seem to really get it and so I found that really exciting um but but there aren't any really more

2:40:37details because the bus budget had only state budget had only passed the day before um let's see the um I guess I won't even hardly talk about East Bay division because we talked about the governor's proposed budget and meanwhile past so I won't talk about that

2:40:59WIC Tac is looking at moving probably to the building at the corner of Potrero and San Pablo Avenue in El Cerrito uh next to Denny's um but it's not a hundred percent definite it'll probably happen and let's see um I think that's that's it for tonight so with that we will

2:41:31um adjourn this special city council meeting to our rec next regularly scheduled meeting on July the 15th at 7 pm here thank you one and all and um please join me at the Fourth of July yeah celebration here in El Cerrito thank you