If you want us to wait a moment, why don't you go ahead, this power.
When I say we start, there's an issue at the back.
Waiting for Pam.
So we're good to announce this to everybody in the world.
Excellent.
Good evening and welcome to the July 27th, 2023 regular meeting of the Walnut Creek
Creek Planning Commission. At this time I'd like to ask our Commission Secretary
Andy Smith to call please call the roll. Certainly Commissioner Neeting. Here.
Commissioner Lezak. Here. Commissioner Pickett. Here. Commissioner Anderson. Here. Vice
Chair Strongman. Here. Chair Ward. Here. And Commissioner Reiser is absent tonight
but we have a quorum with six. Okay great thank you very much. Next. Next on our
agenda is the consent calendar and we do have one item on the consent calendar
would any commissioner wish to pull this item for discussion?
Okay, seeing none, I would now ask if any member
of the public wishes to comment on the consent calendar item,
which is the Carmel Drive Town Homes item
and other items.
And I would also mention anybody attending via Zoom,
if you wish to provide comment on this item,
please press the raise hand button now in the app.
Oh, it's like we do have somebody here, okay.
bringing in Campbell Ziegler. Just voicing my support for the Town Home
project. It's great to see the city. I mean I know housing is a big problem in
California and so it's great to see Walnut Creek improving its housing
stock and working towards helping the issue. Okay thank you very much for your
comment. Do we have any other members of the public wishing to comment at this
time? I'm not seeing anybody else raise their hand. It doesn't look like there's
anybody in the chamber. Okay great thank you. All right so at this time I'd
entertain a motion to approve the consent calendar. I'll move. Thank you.
Second. Okay we have a motion a second can we please call the roll. Yes Commissioner
Neating. Yes. Commissioner Lezak. Yes. Commissioner Pickett. Yes. Commissioner
Mr. Anderson?
Yes.
Vice Chair Strongman?
Yes.
And Chair Ward?
Yes.
Motion carries.
Okay, thank you very much.
Next we have item three, public communications.
This portion of the meeting is reserved for items not on the agenda.
Under the Brown Act, the commission cannot act on items raised during public communications
that may respond briefly to statements made, questions posed, request clarifications or
refer the item to staff.
So just to reiterate, this is the time for comments on things that are not on the agenda.
So if you have something to say about our SB 9 ordinance that's later and also I also
would like to remind everybody that not all speech is protected and that we do not tolerate
any sort of hate speech or other unlawful speech with regards to public communication.
So that being said do we have any members of the public who wish to comment on items
not on the agenda?
And again I would note if anybody who's attending via Zoom wishes to speak on an item not on
agenda please press the raise hand button now I'm not seeing any hands go
up okay great so with that let's move on to our next item which is item for
public hearings and we have one hearing scheduled for a project I am so sorry
Madam Chair actually do have a speaker for public comment they provided a
speaker card oh and I just forgot about it we didn't see anybody get up let's
please do that now then. This is Chris Palomo. I apologize for that. Good evening chair and planning
commissioners. I thank you first lot. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. My name is Chris
Palomo and I'm a field representative for the NorCal Carpenters Union at a local 152 and we represent
all across the county. I'd like to speak to you tonight about a few things that are very important
to me and many of your constituents. I live here in the city of Walnut Creek so yeah I'll go over
room. It's gonna be labor standard. So whenever you're thinking about, you
know, proven projects and stuff like that, it is crucial that we elevate
labor standards and ensure fairness for all workers involved in the building in
this city of Walnut Creek. I will focus on three important topics. Liveable
wages, access to health care and implementation of a joint apprenticeship
program. First and foremost, it is time we demand fair compensation for the
hardworking individuals who construct and shape this city. Developers and
contractors must be held accountable for paying a livable wage to their
employees. No workers should have to struggle to make ends meet, especially
a city that prides itself on progress and prosperity. By setting and enforcing wage
standards that reflect the cost of living, we can assure that our workers have the financial
stability that they deserve. Furthermore, access to health care should not be a luxury
reserved to a fortunate few. Developers and contractors must be obligated to provide comprehensive
health coverage to their employees. The physical well-being of our workforce directly impacts
our productivity, morale, and overall quality of life. By guaranteeing health care benefits,
we not only prioritize the welfare of our workforce, but also strengthen the entire
communities health and resilience. Lastly we must emphasize the
importance of skill development and fostering to highly skilled workforce. A
joint apprenticeship program which brings together industry experts and
aspiring workers is a powerful tool in achieving this goal. By
implementing such a program developers and contractors can ensure that
individuals entering the industry receive the necessary training and
guidance. This apprenticeship program will not only provide vulnerable valuable
hands on experience but also open doors to a long-term career opportunities. In
In conclusion, by elevating labor standards, ensuring livable wages, providing health care,
and implementing a joint apprenticeship program, it will lead to a more equitable and prosperous
city.
Not only will workers thrive, but the entire community will reap the benefits.
When we prioritize fairness and accountability, we set a strong foundation for the future
growth and success in the city of Walnut Creek.
And I look forward to, if you guys ever have any questions, I can sit with each and every
one of you, kind of go over what we see out there in the labor standards going on in your
city.
Thank you.
for your comments, much appreciated.
All right, anybody else in the chambers or online
who would like to make public comment
on an item not on the agenda?
Andy, how are we doing?
There's no raised hands.
And this time, I don't think I'm forgetting anything.
I think you're doing great.
All right, so then let's go to item four,
which is public hearings.
And at this time, we'll start our hearing
for the SB 9 ordinance zoning ordinance amendment.
know, the SB9 study session here and we're going to start with, see Andy it's contagious
now.
We're going to start with a staff report and Andy's going to do that for us so take it
away Andy, thanks.
All righty, seems like every time I go to give a presentation up here the technology
has changed.
So I'm actually here just to provide an introduction and of course I left my notes over there.
a mistake I made by actually having notes. So it says here I should say hello. Anyway,
I'm Andy Smith. I'm the senior planner, heads up long-range planning for the city. And what
we have tonight is a study session so we can have a little bit of fun tonight so to speak.
This is of course to discuss a new permanent SB 9 ordinance. Of course there will be quite
of additional information in the presentation.
Our main purpose tonight or the main thing we're looking for is seeking input both
from the public and from this commission and kind of the order of things be a staff presentation
and then of course take questions from the commission.
If you have any, then public comment and then would turn over to the commission for deliberation
And what I would suggest you would consider is there are basically a number of subject areas
that are spelled out in the staff report section by section and the order is also going
to be followed in the presentation.
And if the commission so pleases, you may wish to discuss each of those sections separately
or independently just, you know, one after the other rather than trying to save up all
of your comments on everything all at once.
And really all we're looking for hopefully is a majority consensus for each of the items.
Now, of course, there may not be consensus, and that's perfectly fine,
but really we're not, there's not going to be any, there's no resolution,
there's no formal action being taken tonight.
We're basically seeking input and we'll be returning later in August
with an actual draft ordinance that we'll have taken into account all of your input.
So with that actually I'm going to turn it over to our consultant Heather Coleman.
Heather and, actually Heather and I used to work together many years ago and as it happens,
she of course has many years of experience in planning and many years
of experience writing zoning ordinances in particular and in fact has also worked
with one other Bay Area City on crafting their new permanent SB 9 ordinance as well.
And you think, oh, only one, well, actually there's not a lot of cities
that have permanent SP9 ordinances as of yet.
Most either have none, or just very quickly adopted an urgency ordinance like we did
because the state law was passed leaving very little time to actually take action.
Heather also, as you can probably tell by the fact that I used to work with her way back
when in a different jurisdiction she also has public sector experience,
which is actually really important because that means that she's, as we say,
in the industry, she's worked the counter,
she's had counter duty, which means,
she's actually spent time, frontline time with the public,
actually implementing zoning ordinance regulations,
explaining them, reviewing permit applications and the like,
and that's really an important bit of background to have
for somebody who's actually drafting regulations
because they'll have had that experience
and that insight into basically writing rules
that are actually usable and implementable
and hopefully somewhat understandable,
at least as zoning ordinance regulations go.
So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Heather.
And she will take you through SB 9
and what we're looking at tonight.
Good evening, commissioners.
My name is Heather Coleman, planning consultant.
So Andy already gave you a bit of an introduction
to what we're here to do tonight.
And I will take us through the rest.
So we're here to develop regulations implementing SB9
in Walnut Creek.
These will replace the interim regulations
that were adopted in 2021 and extended in 2022.
Really wanna focus on the areas
that the city is allowed to regulate
because much of SB9 already describes and prescribes
what cities must allow,
but within the parameters of what state law allows us
to regulate and set standards on,
that's what we want to focus on.
So as Andy mentioned, the purpose tonight
of this study session is for you to give staff input
so that we, they and I can draft an SB9 ordinance,
a more permanent set of regulations.
Just to recap what SB9 is,
it's called the California Housing Opportunity
and more efficiency act.
As the name suggests, it's intended
to help alleviate California's housing crisis
and provide more variety of housing types, a greater
variety of housing types.
In short, it requires cities to allow duplexes or two
primary units on each lot in a single family residential zone
and also divide any lot into two,
any lot that's located in a single family residential zone.
It went into effect the beginning of 2022.
It applies to all single family zones.
This is a map showing where those are in Walnut Creek.
And it's worth noting that 75% of the land,
approximately 75% of the residentially zoned land area
in Walnut Creek is zoned
for single family residential uses.
There's some exceptions where SB9 doesn't apply.
They're listed here.
A lot of them have to do with environmental constraints.
An individual site also,
you know, SB9 development cannot allow,
I mean, involve the demolition of affordable housing
or existing rental housing.
Walnut Creek adopted an urgency ordinance in 2021
and extended it in 2022.
This was right as SB9 was about to go into effect.
So at that time, the ordinance just includes standards
that are the minimum that are required
to comply with SB9, and they set certain standards
such as height, floor area, objective design standards
and protection of highly protected trees.
So now here we are in 2023,
The interim ordinance or urgency ordinance is going to expire in December 2023 and it
cannot be extended any more times per state law.
The last year and a half since SB9 went into effect has allowed a little more time for
analysis.
So staff has experience applying the SB9 regulations and explaining them to counter customers
and explaining to property owners what they can and can't do in their lots.
So that informs what we're presenting tonight.
Also, more other jurisdictions have adopted either interim or permanent SB 9 regulations,
so we had a chance to compare what other jurisdictions have done.
Furthermore, the six cycle housing element is an overarching policy document
that is guiding this work.
It's mentioned in the staff report that a number of goals relate to providing new housing.
In particular, goal 8.8.1 or no, sorry, it's a H.1, H-1 says, talks about providing sufficient
housing sites and encouraging the availability of housing types for all economic segments
of the community.
Their goal talks about facilitating affordable housing opportunities, particularly for Walnut
Creek workers, first-time homebuyers, and lower-income renters.
The small-scale infill development that is associated with SB 9 can provide affordable
to moderate ownership and rental opportunities.
And one of the main fair housing issues identified as part of the housing element process was
a lack of housing choice and mobility caused by a lack of affordable housing.
And the implementation program for the housing element specifically mentions codifying SB9
regulations and mentions considering allowing greater floor area.
So there's a lot of policy guidance.
So we're going to present a series of issues and options to you tonight.
And some of them get into the nitty gritty.
But we'd like to draw your attention to this overarching question, which is does Walnut
Creek want an SB 9 ordinance that is on the more restrictive end of things?
By restrictive, we mean that it limits SB 9 units to the minimum that is required by
state law.
Or do you want to have an ordinance that's more on the flexible end that allows more
than the minimum required by state law and might encourage or incentivize property owners
to put additional dwellings on their lots?
So before we get into the choice areas, it's worth mentioning some of the items or aspects
of development that are already set and established by SB9,
that cities really cannot govern or, you know, regulate.
So one of them is a number of units.
So on an undivided lot,
just a preexisting single family zoned lot,
a person can develop two primary units that take the form
of either a duplex or two separate single family homes
on a single property.
And in addition to those two primary units, they can do as many accessory dwelling units
or junior accessory dwelling units as are allowed by state law.
On a divided lot, cities must allow them to have at least two units per lot.
So that would be a total of four if you take the preexisting lot, comes out to four.
These setbacks are also established by state law, so cities can keep their normal front
setbacks.
But when it comes to a rear setback or an interior side setback, by which we mean, you
know, where a lot abuts another lot, the maximum that cities can require for an SB 9 project
is 4 feet.
When there's an existing structure there, like, for example, somebody has a detached
garage sitting at the back of their lot and it's right on the property line. No
setback can be required if somebody converts that into an SB 9 unit or if
somebody constructs an SB 9 unit to the same dimensions and in the same
footprint basically as the existing structure. Another thing to keep in mind
is cities have to allow at least 800 square foot units per lot
and and if there are any zoning standards development standards or design
standards that would preclude two 800 square foot units those need to be waved
to the extent that they would allow the two 800 square foot units. Oh okay, there
we go. So for each of these topics we'll take you well I'll mention what state
law says so in the case of floor area I just mentioned you have to allow at least 800 square
feet or two 800 square foot units per lot and the intramordance Walnut Creek said the
maximum that you can do for an SP9 unit is 800 square feet. Other jurisdictions that
we surveyed most of them did not set a floor area limit or if they did set one it was something
more moderate that was more similar to what they allowed for ADU such as 1,000 or 1,200
square feet. Some did not set a floor area limit. In that case, an SB 9 unit by which
I mean like a two-unit project, each unit, it would just, it could be as large as any
single-family dwelling in the same district. And so basically I've mentioned the three
options that you see here as A, B, and C. Another idea that has come up is to allow
the first primary dwelling on any lot to be any size and then restrict the second one
to either the 800 square foot you have now or something more moderate, more similar to
ADUs. Speaking of ADUs, on the next slide, this, for comparison purposes, this is what
the City of Walnut Creek currently allows for accessory dwelling units. You can see
that it varies based on lot size and how many bedrooms you have, but it ranges anywhere
from 850 to 1,000 square feet. So one comment that staff, or one response that staff has
gotten at the counter when people come in wanting to find out what they can do with
their lots is, well, I can only do 800 square feet, you know, there's not a lot of incentive
to do that if you could build a larger accessory dwelling unit than you could an SB9 unit,
so something to keep in mind.
Building height, SB9 really doesn't say anything about building height, just that you need
to make sure you allow two 800 square foot units.
The interim ordinance set a height limit of 16 feet, and that applies whether it's detached
attached to the main house or the first house. Other cities we looked at did a
range of things. Some of them had a lower height limit for SB 9 units and
they did for you know single-family homes in the same district. Some just
regulated SB 9 units the same as they did single-family homes in the same
district. We noticed that several of them are doing kind of a two-part
structure if or you know format where if if the SB 9 unit meets the standard
setbacks the regularly required rear inside and front setbacks then it can go
up to the same height as a house any any regular single-family dwelling but if it
takes advantage of the reduced setbacks that state law allows and goes close you
you know, as close as four feet to the side and rear property lines, then they would limit
it to the same height that they limit detached accessory dwelling units to.
And we put a range of 16 to 18 feet because that's in line with some new state law and
accessory dwelling units.
So those are two, three options are keep the height limit low, vary it based on setback,
allow SB 9 units to be the same height as other buildings in the same zoning
district. And right now in Walnut Creek that's 25 feet and two stories except it
sounds like in some cases it can go up to 29 for a pitched roof. So another area
that cities do have some just some latitude to regulate is how many parking
spaces they require. State law says that you can require no more than one parking
space per SB9 unit and if you're within half a mile of a major transit stop like
a BART station or a block of a car share station then you can only then you can't
require any. It does not talk about whether spaces must be covered that's
kind of that's up to jurisdictions and the jurisdictions that we looked at
there was a range of requirements some of them require it to be covered some
of them don't. The interim ordinance required one space per SB 9 unit and it
did require it to be covered. So some basic options that we're putting
forward here are to keep the existing standard of one covered space, to continue
to require one space but allow it to be uncovered, and or to not require any
off-street parking for SB 9 units. So one jurisdiction that I worked with, City of
Salimita, they decided to eliminate parking maximums completely, so that is an option.
One issue with requiring covered parking is you might end up with carports, where people
just put up something to meet the standard, and sometimes carports can be unsightly.
So one thing to keep in mind.
Design standards.
So state law does allow cities to set objective design standards as long as they don't preclude
to 800 square foot units. The interim ordinance carried over some of the very simple but important
but cover a lot of area standards from the accessory dwelling unit regulations they have
to do with architectural compatibility, garage conversions and what you do with the front
door of a garage, how many exterior entrances you have that face the street, and then standards
for second story windows to deal with potential privacy impacts on neighboring properties.
The Interim Ordinance also refers to the objective design standards checklist, and the City is
now in the process of adopting new objective design standards. So, you know, we would say
we'll update that reference to the new standards. The new standards will apply to SB9 units.
And so our two basic options are keep the existing standards and update the references
or you could do something much more extensive based on any design concerns that might be
brought up by the commissioners or the public.
One thing to keep in mind is we expect that a lot of SB9
development is going to be in the back.
There's already an existing house.
It's a lot of the time the infill development
is going to be behind an existing house.
So keep that in mind as far as how visible these units will be.
So, then the second big area that SB 9 deals with is dividing a property, dividing a single
family zoned property into two. And there are certain things that are already set by state law.
Cities have to allow this. Each parcel needs to be about the same, about half the size of the
pre-existing parcel, no more than 40 percent, like a 40-60 split. And each new parcel must be at least
1200 square feet. For reference, Walnut Creek's single-family zones start at 8,000 square foot
minimum, so 1200 is pretty small. There's some other regulations that are already in state law,
like once a parcel is divided, it can't be divided again, the city can't require dedications of
right-of-way or off-site improvements, and an applicant must state that they're going to
reside in one of the units
on one of the resulting parcels for three years.
Oh, and this is just,
we borrowed it from the city of Palo Alto
from their lot design standards,
but we just wanted to introduce
kind of how lots might be divided,
different ways they might.
So on the left, we have a side-by-side division
where if you picture Street down at the bottom
of all three of these in the first scenario,
each slot has equal frontage along the street.
And the second scenario is called a flag lot.
It's where you have one lot in front of another
and then a narrow.
It's called a flag pole or a panhandle
that provides access to the rear lot
from the street to the rear lot.
And then in the third situation,
you have a landlock parcel
It doesn't have any frontage along the street,
but it has a private road with an access easement
across the front property.
So just a little review before we go on to the next part.
So currently, so State Law doesn't really prescribe this.
It says that cities can set subdivision standards,
including requirements for access or frontage.
and as long as their standards don't preclude
an urban lot split or preclude the two 800 square foot units
that we've been talking,
that I've been talking about over and over again.
So the interim ordinance adopted a minimum width
for the flagpole portion of 24 feet.
And that was based on the city's street standards.
So that would be for a private street, I guess.
And then some of the options that we've put are keep existing standards,
adopt a moderate width, like 18 or 20, or you could just not specify the width of the panhandle
and default to the fire district standards.
That's what some of your neighboring jurisdictions have done, just leave it
up to the Contra Costa Fire District and other safety and utility district standards.
Very similar issue here is easements, so this is kind of going back,
I'm going to go back two slides here, do you want, it's question of whether you want
to allow the far right scenario with an easement across the front lot.
And basically right now the interim ordinance says you can only do that, like first you've got
to try to have the 24 feet and then if you can't then you've got to have some
frontage and then if you can't do that then you can have an easement. So the
question is just do you want to loosen that up and allow easements in all
situations. A final topic is development impact fees. So SB 9 doesn't really speak
to this but other sections of state law do allow the collection of development impact
fees in Walnut Creek. That's going to include traffic impact and affordable housing in
Luffy. The interim ordinance explicitly stated that SB 9 units, development of SB 9 units
does involve the payment of affordable housing in Luffy's and any impact fees it says but
These are the two that really come into play.
So this is another place where we need to compare to ADUs
because ADUs, for the most part, do not end up
paying impact fees unless they're over 800 square feet.
Correct me if I'm one of the staff
if I don't have that quite right, but OK.
So if somebody is thinking about doing a smaller unit,
like 750 square feet, why would they do an SB9 unit
and pay the development impact fee if they could do an ADU
and not pay the impact fees.
So we're just thinking about incentives here.
So some of the options that we've listed
are keep the existing standards,
require development impact fees for SB9 units,
but exempt them if they're under 800 square feet,
or reduce or waive the inclusionary housing,
that's the affordable housing and lieu fee,
but leave the other development impact fees,
or you could also just reduce or waive
all development impact fees for SB9 units
to encourage people to build them.
So what we're asking for you is to hear public comments,
of course ask us questions, and then hear public comments,
and then provide direction to staff
on drafting a permanent set of SB9 regulations
for Walnut Creek.
Thank you.
Great, thank you very much for that wonderful presentation.
It's really complicated, and you made it,
you really set forth the issues very clearly,
and we really appreciate that.
So, as we just heard, now it's time
for commission questions with regard to the presentation.
Does anybody have any questions?
And just to remind you, this is questions, not comments.
We're not gonna deliberate decide.
We're gonna do that later.
This is just questions.
I wish for an answer.
Thank you.
Just for clarification, when you're referring to SB9 units,
you're referring to two units on one lot,
not the lot split, and two or four or whatever,
on that, just talking about for a single lot.
It could be either a single lot or a lot split.
When I'm referring to SB9 units,
I'm meaning two detached single family dwelling units
on a single lot or a duplex on a single lot and the reason I'm saying SB 9 units is to
distinguish them from accessory dwelling units.
You can also have accessory dwelling units on your lot but the SB 9 units are primary
units and they're not subject to the ADU regulations, they're subject to their own regulations but
the idea is that they are main units and then you can have any number of accessory dwelling
units as allowed by state law, so I'm really referring to two unit projects, either a duplex
or two detached single family dwellings, but they're located on the same lot.
Very good question.
I just wanted to try and get at it, is if you do a lot split under SB 9, then the two
Resulting lots each of them
Are they subject to sp9 constraints or are they just you know standard one lot development?
If you'd like I can I can jump in on that one actually the so under our existing regulations and the zoning ordinance
the
You know, let's say you have your typical single-family lot
That's got a house may or may not have 80 use but you've got a house on it and then and the owner does an urban lot
split
The any units built on the new vacant lot are considered sb-9 units
And then the second unit built on the lot that still has the house on it would also be considered an sb-9
under the current interim ordinance sickle is nice to my next question which is
You have a house and you have a lot. I'm sorry have a lot with a house on it
You have a house with a lot on it already. It's a 1800 2,000 square foot house
and then you decide under SB 9 to put a second unit there, not an ADU, but a second unit.
I think you just said the second unit would be considered SB 9 unit, the first one, the existing one, but not.
Under our current regulations, yes, that's correct.
And if you had an empty lot built a standard unit under the current regulations, that second lot, you're only allowed...
No, I'm sorry, you have an empty lot, you buy a lot, a single lot, and you build a house.
And then two years later, you decide you're going to add a second unit under SB9, so the
first one, you wouldn't have to make that one smaller or shorter or anything like that.
That's under the standard development requirements.
The second unit would be under SB9.
Correct.
that's under our current ordinance that's defined that way.
In fact, the existing primary dwelling
is defined as a pre-SB9 unit.
In the, that's how it's written.
Even if it's built later.
No, the house, so you've got a vacant lot,
you build a house under the current,
normal zoning regulations for a house,
and then you add a second unit under SB9.
At that point, you have a pre-SB9 unit,
which is the original house built just to normal regulations.
And then the SB9 unit, which is subject
the 800 square foot limitation and the other ones that were gone over. Thank you.
So I saw in the staff report that to date there have been two
applications in the city for this. My question is really about scale. You know
we're talking about an ordinance to create a whole new set of rules for what
but I perceive to be a likely, relatively uncommon situation.
And so there's been two applications in a year and a half.
Is that right?
Yes, that's correct.
How many more applications do we expect in the next eight-year housing element cycle?
Did we speak to this at all in the housing element?
And if you know, how common is this in other cities?
Are people seeing, I guess my,
and I'm trying also to compare that in scale to, say, ADUs,
which we did see a certain number of ADUs happen.
I know it isn't a huge number, but percentage-wise,
we saw an increase over what previously was done
prior to the state law.
Go ahead.
Okay.
Okay, let me try to remember the question.
first about, well, let me, the part that I definitely remember with regard to ADUs,
we have in the city, I actually forget the exact number, but it was either 60
or 90 ADUs, it's somewhere in that ballpark across the entire city. Now that
is out of a total of 32,000 plus dwelling units existing in the city, so
it's a small amount. There is a lot of interest, the rules have been loosened
by the state repeatedly. And so the interest is going up and up and up. We're seeing about
15 a year now, give or take. But the number is going up. Of course, ADUs, they're exempt
from a lot of the, in addition to zoning exemptions, they're exempt from a lot of fees, not just
from the city. You know, we don't charge development impact fees for ADUs, but likewise there's
reduced fees, sometimes greatly reduced fees to say the water district and the sanitary
district. And normally those fees on their own for a house can get above $50,000 and
actually well above that for a new house. And those are reduced or waived depending
on the size of the ADU. So it's a popular option. But it is, of course, as any homeowner
knows, trying to add a unit to a property that has a house in the middle of it is sometimes
a challenging proposition, not to mention an expensive complex and difficult to live
through, and those matters were actually studied by the Turner Center at UC Berkeley, where
they did kind of a GIS mathematical analysis of how many properties they looked really
at.
I think they were looking at the entire Bay Area, but they were looking at how many properties
out there could, theoretically, accommodate an SB9 unit, and then they looked at, okay,
well, how many of those would it actually financially make sense, and then they, you
They went from a big number to a much smaller number, what makes financial sense to do it,
and then what would actually be expected just given homeowner behaviors and the like, and
the number just gets smaller and smaller to the point where SB9 likely wouldn't have a
very outsized impact on cities.
For somebody who's living right next door to one, they're going to see that there's another
unit there but at the city-wide level the number is been expected to be small
and we've seen it that way and it's really not necessarily because of
any actions on the part of the city it's just the nature of construction being
very expensive and difficult and like I said if you've got your house it's
already in the middle of a lot where are you gonna fit in a second unit it's can
be challenging. So if there were two applications to date your opinion is
that is fairly consistent with the rate that we might see
in the next eight year period, so I can't project
and actually we really didn't do a projection for SB 9 units
in the housing element because HCD, the California Department
of Housing and Community Development,
which is the state agency that certifies housing elements,
they basically wouldn't allow us to use SB 9 units
to meet our housing allocation primarily
because we don't have a track record with them
because the law didn't exist.
But, you know, as Heather mentioned, we've received a lot,
you know, of course, when SB9 was out in the news
and it was a big thing all of a sudden,
we did get a lot of inquiries.
A lot of them were more just like, hey,
is this even a possibility?
Just kind of like beginning to think.
Most of the time when they found out that it limited
to 800 square feet, it was kind of a, oh, never mind.
You know, how many of those people would have actually gone
through all the way to construction
if the floor area limit was larger,
I would assume it'd probably be more than two units,
but I couldn't really venture a guess as to how many more.
Okay, thank you.
So, I mean, just to wrap this up,
the little bit at the moment of a tempest in the teapot,
like this is not like a huge,
I mean, we'll hear some comments from the public,
but there's not a ton of demand,
other than the ordinance is about to expire,
there's not a ton of applications coming in that we're trying to respond to that's
correct we've only had two applications and only ones gotten as far as basically
kind of being ready to issue a building permit other than that the feed like one
of the written comments that was submitted and it was attached with the
staff report packet with the original staff report packet is from that
applicant speaking to the in lieu housing fees for inclusionary units okay
Any other questions?
Bob?
Okay.
Vice Chair Strongman, you're up.
Speaking of financing it, do we have a rule of thumb for construction costs for residential
in Walnut Creek?
Oh, boy.
I don't know if I want to go on record saying.
It really depends a lot on the construction type.
But typically, you know, SB9 units, it's going to be just standard wood frame construction.
I would actually, before I venture a guess,
I think there's a few other members of the commission
that I would first defer to.
Michael will speak to that, who are in the business.
I haven't built a single family house for 10 years,
so I have no idea.
But small houses are very expensive for a square foot
to build.
Large custom homes are in the $300 a square foot range.
So $200 might be reasonable?
I was going to.
Probably not.
I was going to say $400 a square foot.
But for a smaller unit, you're going to be higher per square foot
because you got bathrooms and kitchens.
And that costs the same kind of regardless.
You're up there, I'd say 300 plus for a small unit.
So, OK.
Thank you.
It's listening to your presentation, which was very useful.
Seems to be some contradictions between the RADU laws and the ESP9 laws.
Are we going to try and reconcile those somehow?
Is the question are we trying to reconcile them?
Yeah, will there be any, I mean it seemed to be some points might be,
might be easier to do an ADU than an SB 9 type thing.
I think we're presenting, I mean with both ADUs and SB 9 units, a lot
of the standards are already set in state law.
But we're presenting some contrast here because it raises the question of, you know,
if SB9 units are harder or more expensive to construct or have to be smaller,
And then it kind of disincentivizes the use of SB9.
And SB9 does offer, one thing that it offers over ADUs
is potential, although it sounds like constructing
is not necessarily cheap.
But if you were to divide a lot and sell part of it off,
that could be a slightly more affordable home ownership
opportunity because you have a smaller lot.
You could also, depending on the local regulations, allow for separate sale of the two units which
aren't two units.
Floor area limits and height limits are areas, particularly floor area limits, is an area
where the, our city's SB 9 regulations do not match that of the ADU regulations.
So we've offered as potential options increasing the floor area limit of an SB-9 unit to match
that of an ADU.
Okay.
One final question.
On the staff report, page three, towards the bottom, they have about requiring deed
restrictions for affordable provisions recorded for 55 years.
are we trying to make sure that any SB9 unit
is affordable by deed restriction?
So that's a program HG,
I'm sorry, H6G of our adopted housing element.
And it's for the city to consider
allowing larger SB9 units
and then permit homeowners to develop both an ADU and JADU
on the SB 9 urban lot splits which would be beyond what we have to require or have to
allow under state law if the homeowner is willing to put the ADU and JADU under deed
restriction to make them affordable units just like an inclusionary unit, for example.
But there's nothing in SB 9 itself that says we have to have deed restrictions?
Correct.
Thank you.
Okay, Commissioner Pickett.
Okay, one question, more than one question, first question, so it sounds like and I would
believe this is the case, SB9 really is probably not going to be a significant factor in increasing
our housing supply, is that sound based on the history of Walnut Creek with two applications
and based on the fundamental geometry of a single family house sitting in the middle
And trees that exist and you can't encroach
Doesn't seem to me to be a big thing. And then so that leads question
Why do we know we have this could somebody in the state thought we should have it? Who was that?
well, I'll take the heat of answering the question as to how much do we expect this to
Impact if you will the city of Wanna Creek and I think your your observation is correct. We're not we're not really expecting
a whole lot in the way of SB 9 units. A certain, you know, again within the city-wide scope
of having a total of 32,000 plus dwelling units in the city, about a third of which,
a little more than a third of which are single-family homes. As far as, you know, who, who what and
why in Sacramento, that I couldn't tell you. I don't remember who the author was of the,
of the bill and I wouldn't want to speak to their motivations.
Look into that and I don't know if you're asking about also whether we need to have a local ordinance
Okay
Actually, I do want to clarify that we don't have to have a local ordinance
If you don't adopt a local ordinance, it just defaults to the standards and state law. So
Cities have adopted ordinances so that they can have some
control over
Certain standards for the development, but if you you know you could also just as as an option
You could let the interim ordinance expire, and then you would just default to the standards in state law, but and you wouldn't be able to
regulate the areas that we mentioned
It's an option so you mentioned, and I heard this I would like you to repeat the information on ownership
That if you do a lot split
The existing owner the sub divider of the lot has to maintain ownership of one of the parcels or can he sell both of them?
The all they have to do is sign an affidavit
Stating that they intend to live in one of the units on one of the lots as their primary residents
For at least three years. They don't have to retain
ownership of the lots
Exceivably somebody could do the lot split sell off both lots and rent back for three years
Or to be
cynical about it they could also just say that they've changed their intent because the the the the
Affidavit that's required under state law is only that they intend to live there for three years
Not that they actually have to and there's nobody to go check on them anyhow. Well again, it's just intense
So we wouldn't enforce that.
Okay. Now, you showed us some exhibits
of potential lot configurations on a lot split scenario,
and those looked like, I mean, there's no dimensions on those.
And I think you said the smallest single family lot we have
in Walnut Creek is 8,000 square feet?
Of our base zoning districts are R zones.
The R8 is the second smallest
with the 8,000 square foot minimum lot size.
there's also the SF HPD one which is a single family high plan development
district one which is a small district along Geary Avenue basically that allows
I think down to like 3,200 square feet ish all right so if we if we took an
8,000 foot lot we any exist most of the existing 8,000 foot lots will satisfy or
meet the standards of an 8,000 foot lot would have minimum widths and depth
requirements. So the majority of those small lots will have certain dimensions.
Has anybody looked at our lot inventory and taken a look at how that would
conceivably be subdivided? I mean if you got a 60-foot wide lot, which I think is
maybe the minimum on an 8,000-foot? I would have to look that up. You don't have to answer that. But I'm just going through the
concept of this. Has anybody looked at the reality of splitting lots that
actually exist in the city of Walnut Creek with regards to homes that are on
them? Is that as an urban lot split under SB 9? Yes, as an urban, okay, so yet we
have an existing R8 zone. We have existing R8 lots, and those lots meet
certain standards. And has anybody looked at what we get into if we're splitting
those because that might have some bearing on how we want to apply some
standards to those splits. Well so SB 9 has a 1,200 square foot minimum lot area
requirement but also when you're subdividing a lot of whatever size it
does state that you can't be more it has to be roughly equal so you can't be more
off kilter than a 60 40 percent split. Yeah so that's 3,200 3,200 and 4,800
square feet would be kind of the maximum range of those two lots end up being so
if you had 38 I'm just going I can't do the math of my head that quick you're
doing it better than me anyhow I just to me it's it's a fundamental evaluation is
how when we're looking at how likely is it and it has to do with what the
existing inventory is I don't know if anybody's looked at that or not we have
not conducted a specific analysis of that. Interestingly, actually, the Turner Center
did in that study that they spoke to. And actually, I think that study did take into
effect building footprint of existing buildings based on JAS publicly available data, sort
of accurate. I will say that the lot dimensions are really not a concern, if you will, in
terms of the subdivide ability to make up a word under SP9,
really, I think, what's more an issue, just speaking kind of
real world, is the fact that all of these R8, R10, R12 lots,
99.99% of them have a house smack in the middle of it. And
if you want to add another house, you can maybe shoehorn
something into the backyard, or build something small, which is
typically what we see in the case of ADUs, or tear down the
house and start from scratch but financially that's not likely to make
quite so much sense. I mean what I envision in the catastrophic world is
that some developer comes in and buys three or four lots together, maybe takes
him a couple years to do that, and then he mows everything down and creates a
bunch of fourplexes in that string of four lots. So you get four lots, you get
16, 16 houses in the middle of a single-family neighborhood, and that that
to me is the future with SB 9 is this multiple assemblage of lots and you know
significant redevelopment of single-family neighborhoods. You know we
can't do anything about that but I think when we're looking at ordinances we want
I will just say that for comments.
Now we also have lot coverage ratios in our single family zones and would those apply
to these two new lots if you do a split, does that same lot coverage ratio apply to the
new houses, can it?
We can apply standards like that but you still have to allow at least 800 square foot units
under state law. So basically most, all slash most zoning requirements are waived as necessary
to physically accommodate at least two 800 square foot units and that's under state law.
Okay did anybody look at that again in regards to the reality of Walnut Creek and zoning
and is that going to be a factor on the 800 square foot unit? I mean 800 square feet. I
I don't know what our lot coverage ratios are.
They're different depending on the zoning.
But again, looking at the smallest scenario,
an 8,000-foot lot has a certain lot coverage,
and split it, would any of that preclude
an 800-square-foot house?
Well, the lot coverage, if the lot was so small
that the two 800-square-foot units
were to exceed the lot coverage maximum,
then that lot coverage maximum is automatically waived
pursuant to state law.
Okay.
I do actually, just to speak to your previous question
about the possibility of sites being somebody buying up
multiple homes and redeveloping them, if you will.
I will, I just wanna make the observation
that we have a number of single family neighborhoods
in the city that are actually zoned
multiple family residential
and have been for several decades.
And for example, along Overlook Avenue
on the other side of the freeway,
over the years we have started to see
some development in those areas,
as per the multiple family residential designation,
but it's taken, I mean,
it's taken decades for that to happen,
and it's still, even there, is primarily single family.
You know, those types of changes
tend to be very evolutionary just because of the realities
of, you know, financial realities of construction,
and also just, you know, do the owners even wanna sell?
Then while you're looking at block coverage, I'll mention that there's maybe the city attorney can
reference the section of SB 9 because I don't have it in front of me, but there is something that
prohibits someone, the same person, from dividing another lot adjacent or anyone acting in concert
with the person who did the subdivision, but we'll have to look up the details of that.
That is addressed in SB 9.
Yeah, they're trying to prevent like speculation and promote small scale infill development.
How many single family homes are in Walnut Creek?
I don't have the exact number in front of me but approximately 12,000 ish.
I can double check.
That's close enough.
I'll trust you.
And do we know what percentage of the Walnut Creek
live in the single family home neighborhoods?
So population, I can tell you that I
think it's 37% of our total dwelling units in the city
are single family detached homes.
The average household size in those homes
tend to be larger than the multiple families.
So if our population is 70,000, let's
say there's somewhere between 30 and 35,000 people living in single family homes if I
had to guess.
About half the city.
I'd say a little bit less than that, maybe 40%.
So SB 9 and its conditions affect over half our city directly, could affect half of our
city population.
By population, I would probably, I'd feel more comfortable saying about 40% of the population.
Right.
Now there was a reference to major transit stations
And I know we talked about this
Briefly when we were looking at ADUs
and I've heard this
Is part the only major transit station we have in a wallet Creek?
I mean they don't count major bus stops or anything right they actually do they do
But there has to be if I remember
There's multiple definitions of transit stops used in these various housing laws
and I think with this one is you have to have two intersecting routes that have a
minimum a
They have to have a bus on each route at least every 15 minutes during peak hours or something like that and
That does not currently exist in Walnut Creek has I don't think ever
Existed in Walnut Creek and given the state of transit at least in the nearer terms probably not likely to happen in Walnut Creek anytime soon
OK, so currently our only major transit station is Bart.
Yes, that's correct.
I think that's all my questions, thank you.
Great.
Do we have any other commissioner questions?
OK, great, thank you.
So now it is time to open our public hearing.
We have no applicant, so we are going
to go straight to public comment.
I see there's someone with a hand raised,
but there are also people in the chamber, so do we have?
I already have a speaker card for Douglas Witt.
All right.
Come on up.
I think the individual, to answer your question, Mr. Pickett,
that pushed this legislation through
was a guy named Wiener or Weiner.
I don't know which one refers at San Francisco.
Thank you.
This has been very informative, I think, to the commission.
The thing that seems apparent in this
is that this state law has nothing to do,
at least for Walnut Creek with increasing the amount of available housing for
uh, lower income people. It, it too, uh,
applications is inconsequential and I would encourage the commission and the
city to focus not so much on the global aspect of this,
but on the issue of what happens to that one individual who is next to the,
one of these units because that can be very disturbing.
Consider the case of a possible 25-foot limit on height,
four feet from your house.
That's and without much architectural capability
to control the architectural features of that house.
If there's anything I think we need to study,
it's the impact on the individual.
whether it's one person, two or five or 10,
that impact is very serious to that individual.
Whereas the benefits from this legislation are minimal.
It was a knee-jerk legislation package
to get votes for people who allegedly think
they're solving a problem.
It has nothing to do with good housing.
That's an opinion.
Some specifics.
I would encourage, as you probably know already,
that we in no way reduce the restrictions in the inner rules
or regulations that are in place right now.
That in fact I would encourage an increase in restrictions.
I'm not aware of which things can and cannot be done.
But for example, there's no restrictions
on the width of the lot.
There should be if we can do it.
It's ridiculous to say that you could divide a lot
It had a 60-foot frontage and put in something that was 20-foot wide.
And one would say, well, it's not practical, et cetera.
But consider for the moment and consider yourselves the guy who's going to be next
to those properties if they're not constrained.
The state law is poorly written.
It's as simple as that.
And I encourage you to do whatever you can to retain the restrictions
and to consider how it would be to have one of these units going next to you
and an atrocity of a construction
for one person's benefit at the expense of another.
I have one specific thing.
There are, I'm no lawyer, by the way,
but CCNRs often constrain the height, or number of stories,
or type of buildings and use that
can be used in a given area.
Those are independent of, can I continue?
No, I'm sorry, your time's up,
so you need to wrap it up here.
I will wrap it up.
Those are independent of the regulations
that the city will provide,
but I would like to see in the new regulations
at least the mention that they have to comply
with CCNRs associated with the property.
That's for benefit for the applicant and for the people in that CCNR area.
Great.
Thank you for your comment.
Do we have anyone else in the chambers who would like to make a comment at this time?
Okay.
I see there's somebody with their hand up online.
Yes.
I will ask if any of the members of the public, I'll be bringing in Brian Walsh actually,
let me first start doing that since Zoom is a little slow.
But if any of the other members of the public wish to, or if any of you zoom, wish to speak,
please press the raise hand button.
I see one hand's gone up and see here Brian Walsh is coming in.
I see his mic's turned on.
Good evening.
Just want to check that you can hear me.
Yes, we can hear you.
Go ahead, please.
Okay.
Thank you.
I want, first of all, I'd like to thank the commission and the staff of the city for putting
together all this information I know is rather extensive. It is a complicated issue and it
does speak to the statewide issue relative to housing and the utilization of lots that
were familiar with the single family lots that have existed for close to a century.
So my first point is what is the state's intentions here and do we believe that the state will
stop where it currently has written the state laws and my belief is that will not be the
case that they will look at jurisdictions like Walnut Creek and determine is the city
stopping or preventing the development of appropriate lots for sub development or subdivision
and will they amend the law to force our jurisdictions to adopt a more lax or more relaxed ordinance.
So, what I would say to the commission is the reality is that there's quite a number
of lots in Walnut Creek that would be suitable for SB9 subdivision.
The current disincentive is, as was spoken of earlier, is you could have a lot that is
substantial enough to be subdivided and still meet the criteria of an ordinance for a home
as if it were a vacant lot but yet you're restricted to 800 square feet.
So in that case there's no incentive for anybody to build and this is the key point.
It is not developers that are going to utilise SB9, it's individual homeowners who are taking
on a project for which they have really no expertise in and the cost associated with
doing this is huge it's hugely prohibitive to undertake subdividing a
loss that you own that you are now going to build a home on in the back of
which was again made in the presentation and most of these lots would be homes
built in the back nobody is going to build a home in the back of their loss
if it decreases the value of their existing home or makes it such that it's
it's not it's not an attractive proposition nor does it work for the
neighborhood, nobody's really interested in that. None of these single-family owners are interested
in doing that. So I would urge the commission to allow the ordinance to be such that a subdivision
of a lot would be then subject to the ordinance that already exists for a vacant lot and not to
minimize it to the restriction of 800 square feet. Flag lots. So as we've talked about, most of these
lots will be development in the back if the lot is big enough where you need an easement
to be able to get through. It makes no sense to have a 24-foot wide requirement. It makes
sense to use the Contra Costa county fire district's code of an easement of 16 feet
because it's really only important in the event of a fire or some sort of an episode
where an ambulance or a fire brigade needs to get back there. So why not adopt just the
counter cost to code of 16 feet. Just one last quick point, I gave you extra
already. Just transparency about cost is all I ask
is that the city then adopt a way of making sure the homeowner knows the cost associated
with up front instead of having to find out too far down into the project.
Thank you very much for your time.
Thank you very much.
Appreciate that.
All right.
I think we have at least one other person.
Yes, I'm bringing in Jan Warren.
Okay.
And it looks like Jan has been brought in, but her microphone is muted at the moment.
Okay, Jan, can you please unmute yourself so we can hear you?
Got it.
Got it.
Sorry.
All right.
Great.
Thank you.
Here we go.
Okay.
Sorry about that.
solve our housing problem. However, you know, we need all we can get and I do think we ought
to proceed with updating the ordinance and I think we ought to make it as flexible as we possibly
can. The gentleman who sent the letter with the two small lots and so forth and the in lieu fees,
I don't know how many vacant lots we have as opposed to people living on with a house in the
middle, but we must have some. And so, you know, I originally wanted to restrict it to,
you know, bring it up to a thousand and then not necessarily just open it up at the end.
But, you know, it's hard to know. I just think we ought to make everything as viable as possible
to make it work for people. Some people would love to have their children live close to them,
and they might have money. I don't know. And yet there's no, you know, home here. There's not a lot,
you know, close to them that they can afford. So for some people, you know, I think it could work.
And certainly we need to give it a try. And for the most part, just to make it flexible is, I
think, the most general comment I would make, rather than y'all went kind of the middle road,
and that's pretty good, and I agree with the gentleman who just spoke about the fire zone.
I mean, looking in my neighborhood, we put in some nice ADUs in our neighborhood,
but we don't have enough easement, and I'm on a corner, and I love my trees, so I'm not going to
be doing anything, but there are people out there that, you know, let's open it up and let's show
that we're trying, and if it benefits folks, it's worth the effort. So thank you for all the work.
Thank you very much for your comment. Okay, Andy, how we doing?
I've got my microphone here. So we do have one additional attendee via Zoom. I would ask
if they're interested in speaking to please press the raise hand button.
Looks like they're just watching instead, so they haven't raised their hand.
Okay, that's great. Is there anyone else in the chambers who would like to speak?
Hi, my name is Sayit Kahangi and I had a piece of property myself close to the BART
station in Pleasant Hill for the last seven years. I got the approval to build a 4,500 square foot
house and then I heard about this SP 50 or SP 9 coming up. So I hold on and scratch that
idea, because I thought this is a really good location. It's a half a mile from the bar,
it has two entrance to two different streets to two different cul-de-sac. I tried for the City
of Walnut Creek to see what can I do with it, because I just didn't want to split the lot
or just build one huge house on it. After going back and forth with the city and 2021,
We got to this idea that we can split it and I said, okay, I split it in two lots and then build the
25 to 2,500 the score for the lot and in the they returned
They came back to me that they said the maximum you can build on it is
1600 on each you cannot build more than that for this they scratched the idea of a building
four plagues or two plagues or anything in else in there and
and I try different people and see if I can build a low income housing over there because
people don't need a car or anything else as about half a mile, we can just walk, very
pleasant walk as flat land to the bar.
So I understand that the number of the application being low is that nobody want to build, it's
it's very hard to build and it's very expensive to build, unless they built something that
the people can use.
On SB9, the requirement is that if you even build the ADU, it's 800 square foot.
To build a nice place for the family of three people, husband, wife and a kid, you need
two bedroom, two bath.
And that takes about 900 square foot to build it.
When you limit that to the 800,
it became a one bedroom or very two small bedroom
that people they use it for just using for Airbnb.
And instead of going after what was the intention
behind the SP9 to build a low income housing
for the people to live in it.
If you have a newlywed people and they just want to live somewhere in Walnut Creek, the
rent is $3,000, $4,000, $5,000, and that doesn't make it so.
I would really appreciate it if you see a Walnut Creek and you guys just look into it
and see what you can do to build something for the low-income people.
I appreciate your time.
Great.
Thank you very much for your comment.
Andy?
Is there anybody else?
No, there's not.
OK, well, thank you all for the comments.
And so we're going to close the public hearing at this point.
And now it's the time when we go back to the commission for comments,
questions, deliberation alike.
And it seems like we have some slides that could help guide this conversation.
So if we could use those to direct us, I think that would be very helpful
because they're already set up and ready to go.
Or maybe that's optimistic.
the tech tech always gets us there they are okay so we've we've already heard
public comments and now it's time to provide directions hope we can go back
and I'm not sure if we're going back to our two unit issues or back to the
overall approach and then to the two issues I'm not sure what yeah that seems
like a good place to start so so this is kind of a philosophical question for us
And, you know, I don't know whether I don't think it doesn't really lend itself to, you
know, easy vote or these are all kind of straw polls and comments that we're making today.
Is that what I'm looking at here?
Okay.
But generally, it's just kind of the overarching philosophy that this commission would like
to see driving the particular implementation of the ordinances that we do to try and implement
SB 9 generally.
And so, as you can see here from these fabulous arrows that are, I don't know,
so we have a, there's a little bit of a suggestion here as to an opinion.
But so we have a restrictive approach, which would be essentially just conforming
to the law, you know, we're required to do that, of course we intend to do that.
But we can, if we want, just do nothing more than that.
And that could include doing literally nothing,
which would give us the minimum required by state law,
but would also limit our ability to do some regulation
that we would otherwise be able to do.
And then the other option, of course, the more flexible,
oh, I see, I'm already, am I veering off?
I'm about to take out a bank of garbage cans here, huh?
All right, flexible approach,
allowing more than the minimum.
We've been given a number of suggestions, so.
All right, help me out here, am I flailing?
I don't know, I thought I was doing okay.
I just want to clarify, Sam Kwon, Assistant Director of Community Development.
In the adopted housing element, there is a program that says that the city will adopt
a permanent SB 9 ordinance.
So I just wanted to make that clear that the city's already committed to do this.
The do nothing approach is off the table, people.
Yes.
Well, we're never going to do that anyway.
So may I ask you a question, Madam Chair?
Go ahead.
for kind of a vote for this particular question.
Yeah, so I think what staff would like is for us to make any comments we have with
regard to these two approaches and then if we can come to some sort of either
consensus vote or just some sort of direction either to say we're divided on
this issue we have you know most of us think one way or another or you know
just some sort of feedback in terms of this so and I think it's smart to start
with the philosophical beginning.
Actually, a panel.
If it pleases the chair, I had just a suggestion that as we go
through and respond with comments,
I think that the staff has made a very good staff report.
And there's a couple of high level sections in here
that speak to floor area ratio, building height, et cetera,
probably those three or I guess probably four
or five different items.
So that in addition to this overall approach
that you've identified maybe each of us in turn could speak to each of those specific
points just so that way as we run the line here that each of those comments kind of come
out and then we could probably try to pull together you know what kind of consensus we
might make or not but in that way the staff would you know in a concise way receive our
comments.
Right.
So that was my intent to go through each of the slides on the categories that we're doing.
Do you think we should not start with the overall philosophy or are you saying, oh no, I just was thinking that rather than go through each slide and having six of us speak on each item through the time we might just each speak on each of those items, those five or six items instead of each of us speaking five times on each item.
Again, you are the chair and it's up to you to decide how you would like to approach this.
I think it will be easier to hold the items in our heads and in our discussion if we go
one item at a time and they have been separated out pretty nicely by staff.
So I think that's what we're going to do.
There you go.
So let's discuss the overall approach first.
I do appreciate the comments because I love discussion about process.
It's always important to establish that first, but let's let's think about whether we want to
really adhere to the the statutory requirements that have been handed to us or whether we want
to go beyond that and have some flexibility or some not deviation from it of course but just
some customization perhaps to our community and I saw Pam needing had her hand up
So let's, we can start with you.
Oh, yes.
I don't know if this is a flexible or restrictive,
but I think there should be some changes
to the current interim ordinance.
Does that mean it's flexible?
Unsure.
OK.
Conjecture.
But all right.
And you'll tell us about these specifics
when we get to those categories.
Yes, I'm going to wait for, till we get to that specific slide
about width and the way you want it, right?
Yes.
OK.
But so you have no opinion, generally,
about the philosophy that we're going to do or you're veering towards the flexible
because you want to kind of the idea I'm hearing from you.
My thought is that that objective standards usually help clarify especially should people,
should it be normal homeowners applying SB9 and not developers.
If you're not a developer having very clear cut,
this is what I need to do to get where I need to go,
and I don't need to be a developer
or have a real estate license.
To me, that seems like the best way to go,
and then there's no gray area.
Okay, great.
Madam Chair, if I may, if it'll help the conversation,
I think it's worth pointing out
that our existing interim ordinance
is basically about as strict as possible interstate law,
And so to deviate from that would most likely
be more in the flexible direction.
Because there's not much more that we can do to really ratchet it down further.
OK, that is very helpful.
Would anyone else like to make an overall philosophical comment
with regard to our overall approach?
I'll jump in and say the current ordinance is very restrictive.
And I think it would be a little bit more flexibility on that,
not open the floodgates, but less restrictive.
Okay, great.
And Mr. Anderson.
Yeah, I'm thinking about this a little bit longer
than others since some time ago
when my son was starting to move back in,
we looked at an ADU as an alternative,
keep him out of the house at least.
And we have, I suspect, is probably kind of typical
8,000 square foot lot with a house in the middle of it.
And what we learned was that if we
wanted to build anything more than about 300 square feet,
it was going to pretty much destroy the whole situation.
So I don't think that with those typical lots,
you're going to get more than a couple a year, if that,
coming into these things.
On the other hand, there's a certain percentage,
I don't know what it is, that are more than that,
they're 12,000 square feet or half an acre,
maybe some larger than that.
And that's where I think something useful could happen
as far as providing additional locations for homes
and additional, perhaps smaller
than the typical homes in those areas.
And in those, with larger laws where this, I think,
actually has some potential, it makes more sense to me
to allow for a larger unit, to allow for more flexibility
in how those things are arranged.
So rather than kind of focusing on the smaller or the typical
lots in town, which I think are not,
as was pointed out by a couple of the speakers,
not really going to accomplish much,
to really focus more on when you do have the room to do something useful, how can you go
about it to actually provide, you know, a two-bedroom, for example, or a smaller unit
in those places. So I would go for a flexible approach.
Great, thank you. Anybody else? Bob?
Yeah, I think, you know, SB9 is kind of a misguided attempt to solve our housing problem.
It's not a solution to the housing problem, and I think, as was mentioned by one of our
speakers, we really should be focusing on the impacts to our single-family neighborhoods
and to the individuals that are adjacent to a lot that might be subdivided.
You know, there's an overarching concept in our general plan about preserving and protecting
neighborhoods and I did talk to Andy about this the words those exact words
are not in there but if you've heard there's a lot of it I'm not going to go
cite all of them but there's a lot of comments in our general plan that refer
to our single-family neighborhoods and maintaining them and I think this is
contradictory to that as a result I think in you know in respect to the
residents of Walnut Creek who have a property they bought a single-family home
to do this is taking that away from them and I think that our efforts ought to be
to protect those people from a you know draconian state law. I think that our
current interim ordinance I'm I'm trying to figure out I'm on the restrictive
side, right? I have to use that word. So I mean if I was to do anything I would
take our current interim ordinance and figure out what else we could add to it
to make it more restrictive. We aren't the whole total number of units generated
by SB 9 and a flexible thing or restrictive thing are not going to be
significant but we got to think about those three houses that are adjacent to
the one guy who wants to go in and jam something in there that it wasn't
intended to. So I'm on the restrictive side as we go through all the little
things we have to talk about that's that's the side I'm gonna follow on on this.
Okay anybody else? Commissioner Lezak. So I'm gonna end up being a little bit in
the hybrid model here and that is to say that SP9 is the state law and it's
probably not going away and we do want to encourage more housing I'm a housing
guy I want to see really good ways to build more housing but I do agree that
this law has the potential did you know to be a problem for existing homeowners
who moved into a place with an expectation of a certain zoning and a
certain rights so there's I'm thinking that there's some balance where that we
can provide some flexibility, maybe a little bit of what Pam was channeling
about ways to use, you know, the current zoning, you know, ordinances, the current
objective standards for certain conditions. And then outside of that,
there's certain areas that we would want to be restrictive, particularly as we're
getting a close to other other homes. So I probably end up being in the flexible
category because I'm wanting something that's a little bit more hybrid and not
as restrictive as where Bob is and not the same law that we've not ordinance
we've got now but I think we need to kind of carefully craft each of these
things so that it considers both sides of this we're really trying to in offer
the opportunity in the right way for this law to provide a little bit of
housing and at the same time protect people so that's sort of my thoughts
that will come out as we go. Thank you.
Great. All right. Well, I too am a housing guy.
And I also think that we need some flexibility, but need to be protective and mindful of existing
residents. And so I think when we're looking at very, very large lots that really are what
this law was aimed at, and we have a bunch of those in Walnut Creek, then I think being
are you know kind of restricting it to a very small home doesn't make sense in
that context and so a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate in my
opinion and I guess that makes me flexible or perhaps hybrid which I guess
is very fashionable these days. All right so I think we've all given our
opinion and I think this particular question is not really conducive to an
up-down vote of any type so I think you've gotten our comments. So why don't
move on to some of this more specific issues so that we can give you some input on those because
I think those are in some cases lovely multiple choice questions that we can we can actually
deal with here so I see the first one is floor area and so we can we can read this but as we know
state law where we can't restrict beyond allowing to 800 square foot units and that's what our
our interim ordinance caps at that size.
So our options, as they have
very kindly been put before us, are to keep the existing standards
to set a higher limit, such as the thousand or twelve hundred square foot
that could possibly be paid to be comparable to the ADU ordinance
that does allow some larger limits in that range or
to be to have a third choice, which would be
to allow SB 9 units to be the same size
as other buildings that are permitted
or allowed in a particular scenario.
And then of course we can start mixing
and matching as we want.
But, and the example given is letting size limitations apply
only to the secondary dwelling that is put on a lot.
So that's what we got.
So anybody, would anybody like to?
From my point of clarification, that's the staff, all those state losses must
allow, you know, 2,800 square foot units, but in actual fact, as we were discussing
earlier, you could put up one unit anyway, regardless of SB 9, and then put
up a second unit, or perhaps even concurrently, put up a second unit under
SB 9. So it really doesn't restrict, I don't think, SB 9 doesn't really restrict
even as the most restrictive point, to two 800-square-foot units.
Am I wrong?
It's really a matter of timing.
You know, if you just have, let's say you have a vacant lot.
You build a house on that lot, and it's just there's no floor area requirement or limitation
other than, you know, setbacks and lot coverage and the like, because at that point it's just
a regular old single family.
And if you want to, after that's been built, if you want to add an SB9 unit, at that point
those additional units, whether it be through an urban lot split or just, you know, adding
a second unit onto that property, those additional units are subject to whatever floor area limitations
we put in place, currently 800 square feet.
If you have a vacant lot and you do an urban lot split and subdivide it and now you have
two vacant parcels, at that point anything that gets built on those parcels is subject
the 800 square foot limit and that's why that's actually the reason for the
variation recommendation or preliminary recommendation is because because of
that situation you know we asked the Commission to consider the possibility
of maybe allowing that first home on both lots to be some larger size and
then having the smaller limit for the second hounds and is that that's so the
variation you're talking about would would encompass that and you know when
we look at the higher limits I mean it's still all these setbacks and other
requirements are being taken into account with regard to the lot size so
there's already a limit in place with regard to that it's just whether we're
arbitrarily capping it at 800 square feet or some other amount okay all right
other comment my personal comment is 800 square feet is awfully small we need to
allow it something larger all right so I guess we can kind of do a little straw
pole down the down the road I mean I unless you have a better idea I will say
that this is probably the the most important question that we're gonna have
for you tonight is the question of Florida this is the one that's the most
limiting under our current regulations it's the one that most of the people
inquiring about SB 9 units have butted up into I would say so if you were to
give us direction on anything we would ask that this be it I have a question is
it possible to have a sliding scale on the size absolutely based on the lot is
being okay and I believe some of the other ordinances that you gave us as
examples did have did have that yes yes basically the the the only requirements
So we have under state laws that, you know, there's the 800 square foot minimum and that
whatever standard we have be an objective standard.
So if it's going to be a sliding scale, it's just, you know, it's a scale that you can
do the math and here's your number.
It's not something that's, you know, subjective, whether it be by commission or staff.
Okay.
So I'm in favor of the sliding scale that some of the other municipalities have used
that we were looking at because I think that does take into account the size of the lot
in question and doesn't treat every lot as if it were the tiniest possible area.
And I'm very mindful of people next door, but I think that that scale,
that sliding scale could take that into account.
So, okay.
Well, let me throw a little complexity into it, just for fun.
It really comes up in a later item, but I think that, you know,
if we do something 1,000 or 1,200 square foot as the standard,
one of the problems with the 800 square foot
or anything smaller is the fees.
You know, because you're already just way over,
your budget is pay the fees.
But I think when we get there, some arrangement where if it is 800 square feet or less then,
you know, you forgive the fees as you would with an ADU.
It makes a lot of sense.
We don't have to be competing with each other.
And, you know, and that maybe you exempt the larger ones only from the inclusionary fee.
Simply because you are actually providing more affordable housing than you would otherwise.
So I think with that kind of consideration as well
as to how the fees work out,
I would say you're gonna go for a larger one,
as I say, simply because on your typical smaller lots,
it's really gonna be very difficult for many people
to be able to fit much onto the lot.
As far as the privacy of the nearby folks,
that can be addressed, again,
layer item on height, you know, just that if you're going to build, I think one of
the options was, if you're going to build close to the edge, you know put a second story on it.
Okay, Bob? Yeah, I'm sticking with my 800 square feet. No, I appreciate that. It's clear.
You can hear me say that every time, but I am open-minded about a sliding scale
And we'll see what comes back.
And I did just did some quick math.
An 800 square foot unit on an 8,000 square foot lot is obviously 10 percent.
I don't think it should be 10 percent across the board.
If you get a 20,000 foot lot, you're putting a 2,000 foot second unit on there.
So I think if we do consider a sliding scale, it needs to be conservative as it ratchets
up with the lot size.
but 800 square feet, but open mind here.
So I think it's important to not try to deviate
just because of this from the general zoning standards
of all of these districts.
Like we all have these standards, they're in place,
they're consistent for all the folks who live there
and they're things that, you know,
If I'm looking at that, I have an expectation that that's going to be in my neighborhood.
And if I'm going to design even under this law,
I think that should still be the overarching guideline is the existing zoning standards.
That would mean lock coverage, that would mean setbacks all of the above.
And within that framework, I would say that we should allow these units to be same size
as any other building.
What I mean by that is that if you're going to build two of these and you can fit on the
configuration of your lot to 1,500 square foot homes and meet all of the lot coverage
requirements and meet the setback requirements and et cetera, then I think the flexibility
should allow that.
Without dictating that one can only be this and I think that that just should be allowed
And what you probably find is that if you build one of them bigger, at some point one
of them is going to end up being the 800, is going to then be less than probably less
than 800 from a lot coverage perspective.
And then they're going to play the oh, you have to let me play 800 square feet, because
that's the law.
And then you're back to Bob's 800 square foot unit.
But you give them the choice, the flexibility by allowing them to do it as long as they're
are still within the box of the zoning and where I would be protective of folks who want
to be outside of the box of that gets into some of these other things when we get to
building height and some of these other standards which we'll talk about but at least within
floor area I'm kind of sticking to there isn't a limitation as long as you're within the
box of the zoning standard.
I've been looking at the floor area, but in conjunction with height and maximum lot coverage.
So it's kind of a math exercise if you just bear with me for a second.
So first of all, I was taking a look at what are the typical sizes we have.
We have R8, R10, and R12.
I was thinking, if we use the maximum lot coverage,
right, for our eight, let's just say that.
8,000 square foot lot is typically an 80 by 100.
And the zoning code actually requires
that the minimum width is 75 feet.
But for now, let's just call it 80 by 100.
So if you do that and you say, okay,
I'm gonna do 40% to the other house.
So that's your 3,200 square foot lot.
That 3,200 square foot lot,
if you do 40% coverage,
that's roughly a 1,280 square foot house.
And we build a lot of single family
detached affordable housing.
And what we do is the lot,
the size of the house is to be comfortable.
On the first floor is typically 25 feet.
You don't want to go anything that's smaller than 25 feet in width,
and then it's 50 feet deep.
And guess what that amounts to?
Pretty much the 1200, the 1,280.
So then I was thinking to myself, OK, Bob, right?
What if we go back to a smaller lot?
So then you work backwards and say, OK, what about an 800 square foot?
If we're talking about a sliding scale, so I did backwards I said 800 the 40% and
Then I backtracked it to the original
So for so that would be a fight. Hopefully everyone's following me
So say that we had a 5,000 square foot lot, which by the way
8,000 square foot lots are big. So now I'm talking now I'm thinking
Dublin
huge huge
population there they're going like crazy, and they have those typical 5,000 square foot lots so the 50 by 100 so if you do that
5,000 you apply your same lot cover so you apply the 40% so I split it 40% in
That 40% lot I do 40% lot coverage Bob you get your 800 square foot lot
So it's that same sliding scale already using the maximum lot coverage of
the smallest here which is the R8 at 40%.
Because what I wanna make sure to do
is not have something that frankly just
no one is gonna wanna build.
Because I feel like if you had an 8,000 square foot lot,
maybe a 1,200 or in this case 1,280 square foot house
may not feel as congested as if, you know,
than the person, than if you had like a 5,000 square foot lot,
which is also a very standard.
So that was my first thought about floor area and the sliding
scale while using the objective coverage standards that we're
using here and also applying that 40% minimum
that the state law requires for the subdividing.
So that was kind of my thought for how to apply.
OK.
I think that's very helpful.
I really appreciate that.
Can I review the math?
Go ahead.
Yeah.
I had it.
Yeah, I can do it again.
Let me try.
So we've got an 8,000-square-foot law.
And 40% coverage is allowed.
8,000-square-feet?
That's what I can do in my head.
8,000-square-foot law.
And 40% is allowed.
Okay, so that's 3200 square feet.
Well, 40% is what the state law requires, right, for that minimum.
Right, Andy, did I get that right?
No, it's 40% of the total lot.
The total- Yeah, 40, 60, right.
50 or 40?
Yes.
She did the lot split version.
I did the lot split version.
So what we're trying to figure, what I was trying to figure out
was, how do we want to look at the house on the lot that has the lot split?
And if that lot, the split lot, is 40% of the original.
Oh, sorry about that.
So that was my thought, is if you're
doing the 40-60 for that lot split, exactly.
So then you take that 3,200 and apply the same objective
standard of the 40%.
That equates to a roughly 1,280 square foot lot.
Pardon me, square foot home.
a footprint
Well, we haven't talked about second stories, that's the second thing that were
When once the chair takes us to the second story
Okay, so
It feels like we've discussed floor area individually and collectively here. So do you have the information you need from us?
I believe so we do have something we can move forward with excellent back with the suggestion
All right, so let's move on to building height then, which I believe is the next slide.
Oh my gosh, all right, we're going off the rails again here.
Okay, so as the slide says, state law currently says that the height limits can't physically
preclude having the 2,800 square foot units on, and that the interim ordinance limits
the height limit to 16 feet.
So the options were being presented here, keep the existing standards or limit the height
to 16-18 feet, which is the same as detached ADUs.
And then the second option would be it depends on the setback.
And if it meets normal setbacks, then it could be 25 feet,
which is two stories, or if it has a reduced using the reduced setback,
then the height limit would be the same for the detached ADUs 16-18 feet.
And then our third choice, same height
as any other buildings in the same zoning.
in most cases that is 25 feet and two stories.
So let's talk about this.
Keeping in mind that people go,
even though things are zoned for two stories,
our experience has been that if people don't know that
and they've been used to one-story houses
in their neighborhoods, they go wild when we say,
hey, but it was always zoned that way,
you know, as one who had people actually stand up
And these chambers shout and shake their fists at me
for that particular issue.
I can attest to that.
So let's talk about it.
I won't start this time.
Whoever wants to start.
All right, excellent.
OK.
So I hear everyone about you purchased a home.
And everyone around you has one story.
and the thought of having a four foot
interior side yard setback.
So with that in mind,
here's what I was also thinking to myself is,
typically speaking, if you look at the code,
the shortest setbacks are not rear,
they're actually side.
Okay, so with that in mind, I was thinking to myself,
what is the, how often would it be
where you actually have two side-by-sides?
And Andy, there was this great slide
that showed side-by-side, then the flag.
I don't know if we can, and I wanted to bring something up.
So in my mind, I was thinking, what is the probability,
as we're looking at maximum heights,
of the houses being side-by-side?
So here was my thought,
was I don't think that people are going to tear down
existing homes in order to do this.
So if you use that in mind, pardon me.
Oh, you will, okay, there you go.
I don't have as much money as you do then.
I think people will.
Okay, so my thought was how often would you have
a side by side if there's already an existing home?
If there's already an existing home,
and let's take that 8,000 square foot lot,
an 8,000 square foot lot,
let's just say it's 75 or 80 by 100,
has a 15 foot aggregate for side.
And if the garage, so if you have 25 feet plus the garage,
plus the house footprint for these ranch homes,
which is architecturally speaking
and Walnut Creek, very prevalent, you have the 30.
So really you don't actually have the ability
to have that side by side.
that was my first thought about what is out there
architecturally and how the homes are built
and what the current aggregate side by side is.
So the only other thing that I was thinking
that folks will be able to do if you have a five foot,
if you have the 15 foot aggregate,
then you have the five and the 10
is really this flag lot or flag lot with easement,
which really puts the homes,
should someone do that in the back.
So that was my thought about that to me
makes me feel a lot better because if it's in the backyard
then the home would not be so overarching or imposing
or just on top of the side neighbors
because we would like to get, I mean,
at least I would like to keep that type of specialness.
That's not even a word, but you know, in Walnut Creek
especially if you're thinking you're buying
in a single family home.
So my thought chair was,
if typically the home is in the back,
or maybe this is a condition that we set
for when the home is particularly in the back,
then perhaps there could be a higher height limit
but while maintaining the same amount of setbacks
as the front house.
So that way you're still using the objective standards
for the aggregate of the side yard setbacks
should the home be in the back
so you still have that privacy and the side to side.
So that was my first.
Great, all right, thank you.
We come back this way.
I think I'm in a similar camp in a different way
and that is I'm hybrid and I'm gonna go with the,
it depends on the setback B selection here
And that is if you're within the box of the zoning requirements,
you're within the setbacks, then I
think it's acceptable to have the house be taller
because whether they knew they were in that zone or not,
that was the zone.
That was the expectation.
I think that's fine.
If you want to go outside of the setbacks that are allowed,
we should allow you to do that.
But the price of doing that would
be to have the lower building height.
And that provides some protection to neighbors
who wouldn't necessarily have thought that we were in that zone.
And really, that's only because it's consistent with the ADU law.
They were going to do an ADU.
They could have done the same thing.
So that's why I'm in the B camp.
Great.
OK.
Thank you.
Bob?
So a question of staff.
When you do this, wasn't there some provision in SB 9 that says you have to relax the existing
zoning ordinances if they prevent you from being able to do what you want to do there?
So the state law only allows the city to require up to a four foot interior side and rear setback.
So we have to allow SB 9 units to get to within four feet of the side of the rear.
We do have the ability to to as what commissioner Lezak had suggested say that if you're going to go closer than the regular city
Setbacks that apply to the main house. We limit you to one one story in height. That is an option that's available under state law
when you say one story height does that have a
footage I
Mean if you go the one story to go that it 12 and 12 pitch you got a taller house
So so that can be of course that also could be something that the city can establish
criteria for I will say that our height the way our height limits are measured
is that you're basically allowed and this is for any building you're allowed
up to an additional four feet if you have a roof pitch of more than three and
twelve but only that additional four feet so for example in a vast majority
of our single-family zones there's a 25 foot height limit but for at least a
three and 12 roof pitch covering 75% of the horizontal area of the building you
can go up to 29 feet okay so another question many years ago we adopted a
mega home ordinance I don't know what we called it but it was oversized home
oversized home ordinance in response to issues exactly what we're talking about
about here and exactly the risk that SP-9 places on our neighborhoods.
Is that ordinance still in place?
Yeah, that is still in the books and what that—effectively what that requires is—well,
there's—so it used to be we didn't require a design review for single-family homes and
that ordinance put into place thresholds for when design review does apply to single-family
homes.
And I'm assuming what you're probably most interested in is the floor area threshold,
which is 4,500 square feet of gross floor area on the entire property.
So that would include detached garages, barns, anything.
Once you exceed and SP9 is not subject to this because we can't do design review, but
for regular homes, once you exceed 4,500 square feet of gross floor area, that triggers a
design review requirement with various findings and guidelines.
Okay, so obviously 4,500 square feet is unlikely and the scenarios we're talking about
But one point would be that the concept which was a big issue in the city of Walnut Creek
10 15 years ago
Still exists today
So I guess on this one too I'm
Going to lean towards the the minimum
But I will also remain open-minded on a scenario where maybe we
Like Peter was suggesting if you're in the setbacks that are set for that
Zone and I think it's gonna be real hard to do that on the smaller lots to stay in the setbacks team build a house
And then then you get the deal where well
You can't build an 800 square foot house because you by the time you put setbacks in the room left
so then we're required to relax the setbacks so that that may not even be
uncomfortable if someone says hey I can't build anything because of your
setback requirements but I'd like to see what staff comes up with on that. I think
again my my deal is protecting what people bought people paid for or they
plan to make make their home for a long period of time unless they choose to
move out of California, which I'm saying why some people are.
So I don't know if it's possible to do it this way.
But one thought would be too, if your unit extends
to the smaller setback to the forefoot setback
or inside the standard setbacks, that you might still
be able to have a second story.
if, one, not having a second story
would preclude the application of SB 9.
And, two, that that second story would,
the second story would be within the standard setbacks.
So that even if the first story of that one
uses the reduced setbacks,
second story would be set back from that.
So it's not, you know, towering over the neighbor's yard
or whatever.
think that may be one way to address the viability question. But I think to the
extent that that even keeping it as a single story only option to the extent
that it does not preclude putting the unit in there. That's also you know this
is going to create denser housing and so that's already that's something of an
imposition on neighbors so to the extent that we can avoid putting a second
story or at the very least keep it away from the the edge. I'd go for that. Not to
repeat everybody I'll go for option B. Thank you. So yeah I think that building
height and setback are really combined you know that's a very important
combination and in that analysis and I don't think we should be allowing
anything two-story that is with it you know in a reduced setback to the extent
we can possibly do that because I think it has a terrible impact on the on the
neighbors you know I'm much less concerned if it meets the 25-foot zone
setback and at that point I think we can be much more generous with that in terms
of the high limits of the main house particularly, so I'm a B person as well, you know, I think
it really meets the limits. It does the best we can to try and allow the house to be built
but still respect the character and history of the neighborhood and respect people's existing
homes they live in next door, which I think is very important. I wouldn't really be in
favor of even allowing a second story that was further set back so that you
still had two stories but it you know the second story was smaller because I
think the bulk of that structure is still imposing and still takes up so
much space on the lot that it visually feels like much more of an imposition
than than not so I don't think that really solves the problem when we're
talking about very small lots with neighbors on the sides.
So I think if I were to take all the comments
and average them out, I think what we're kind of following
is that if the SB9 unit complies with the normal setback
requirements, they can do the normal two-story height limit.
But if the unit goes into those normal setbacks,
takes advantage of the reductions that's allowed by state
law that it's then held to the single-story height limit. I think that's
pretty accurate. Okay great we're doing good let's keep moving here let's move
on to parking requirements. Okay so state law no no more than one parking
space required for SB 9 unit no parking required within half a mile of a major
transit stop which in our case is only the two BART stations.
Interim ordinance one covered parking space per unit. No spaces within half mile of BART station. So I don't think
I'm personally in favor of keeping the no spaces within half mile of BART station. There aren't that many buildable
Places around those BART stations anyway, so I can and state law requires us to
Does or I should say state law does not allow us to require parking within a half mile of work
We don't need to discuss that any further. So our options keep the existing standards as they are
require one parking space per SB 9 unit or
And allow the space to be uncovered or do not require
Obstreet parking at all the what is Alameda the Alameda approach?
for option C or SB 9 units
So there we have it
Okay, any thoughts? It's kind of a question of covered space versus not covered space or eliminating it
I'll start at this direction this time great. I'll go with option a keep the existing standards when parking
one covered parking space per unit.
Just to be different.
A lot of robust discussion.
I would suggest one covered, one uncovered.
The reason being that if the second unit is
in the back, which you're kind of presuming in most cases,
requiring that unit to have a garage or a carport
something I think having a short driveway perhaps they park near the
street but not on it would be would be acceptable again just to keep the cost
of what we hope is going to be a more affordable unit down I think at least in
the uncarved spot is necessary because people are going to have cars now small
the unit is. Madam chair if I may ask for clarification from Commissioner
Anderson are you speaking of having two parking spaces per SB 9 unit because
that's actually not a lot of one per unit but if you have to SB 9 units on a
property main one covered a the one for the smaller unit in the back okay thank
you okay I am I guess I'm a bee on this one it was pointed out that a lot of
what would be qualified as a covered parking space can be really ugly and I
think that we might be better off having a car sitting outside that's about four
and a half feet high than something like our pretty picture here with something
with lattice work and something that I would build to come to qualify as a
covered deal. So I'd go with still require the parking space but let it be
uncovered.
I'm in the same camp and my my thought process is actually slightly different
and that is a little bit about lot coverage. I like to encourage the lot
coverage to be more towards the structure so that folks can have more
livable space and you know less space for the cars themselves. If you're
building a home and you're gonna live in it or run it out there is a value to
having a covered space that is an enclosed garage that people can have
storage in and you know that's a choice of giving up that covered space for lot
coverage for that as opposed to living square footage. I think for flexibility
sake probably encourage people to have a covered enclosed single car garage
because I think that's better than just having the car out but I think I would
that's a choice and to be as flexible and hybrid as possible I'll still go
with the one space that's uncovered as the requirement.
great thank you mr. needing any are there limitations to curb cuts how wide
they are yes there are I couldn't tell you off the top of my head the exact
dimension but our traffic engineering division does have some standards for
maximum core cut with so if you had a flag lot situation because that's what
we're saying that most of them are probably going to be in the back could
could the curb and there's house in the back the curb cut could be widened up
to a certain point I don't remember I kind of want to say that the maximum
width for in the single-family is somewhere in the 25 to 30 foot range and
and of course I happen to tell our supervisor of current engineering that
she didn't need to come tonight so if it was a flag lot there could be an
additional one to the to the side of it another little mini curb curb cut I
believe so yeah in that case I would say the same thing require one parking
space per sb-9 unit but allow the space to be uncovered excellent I'm a B person
as well so we seem to have some consensus on this particular yes we do
that's nice. Okay. Great. Good job, people. Let's move on to design standards. So state
law objective design standards are allowed but can't physically preclude at least to
800 square foot units. Our interim ordinance is the same as the ADU standards and also
refers to the objective design standards checklist that we have. So our options are to keep the
existing standards with minor clarifications to be determined later, apparently, and to
refer to the new objective design standards that are developed or to expand the design
standards to address any concerns raised by the planning commission or the public.
So I'm a little confused about our options here so maybe Andy, you can help me out here.
I actually would want to open by just saying that staff's recommendation would be to keep
the existing design standards that we have in place which match the ADU standards, you
know, they seem like a good fit, they've worked, and honestly we can't really think of anything
else to recommend beyond them.
I guess if the only, you know, if the Commission were to think that the existing standards
are too strict, maybe it could back off from what's in place, but this is one where we
would recommend just to keep the status quo. Okay well I'm willing to go on
record saying I'm an A person then and I would like to my opinion would be to go
along with that staff recommendation. Go down the line here if anyone has a
particular way they would want them to be changed or loosened up. My only
concern on that is that we have some unique neighborhoods particularly the
Eichler neighborhood that I wouldn't want something out of place if they did
something specific standards for them or something like that so I would just to
add to the conversation with regard to that is that we do not have any you
know neighborhood specific design standards or or even just architectural
style standards for anything else in the city any other residential development
So if this were to be put in place, it would only be applicable to SB9 units, not to ADUs,
not to additions to the homes, not to any of the rest of that.
So just for your consideration.
I'll start by saying, objective design standard sounds a bit like an oxymoron to me.
Since SB9 does not allow design review, who decides whether the objective standard has
been met?
No, that's actually a conversation that's occurring right now in general at the council
level with regard to the future role of the Design Review Commission.
There are some jurisdictions that require a commission or a board or committee to make
the determination while there are others that you know it's done at staff level.
For something like certainly for something like the SB 9 you know we
don't have the option under state law of having a public meeting or public hearing
so that really kind of limits us frankly just to staff and you know
obviously I have perhaps I have a certain bias but even if we were allowed
to have a meeting I think I would still recommend that that determination be
be kept at the staff level.
The actual adoption of the objective standards themselves,
however, that would certainly would be something in which is
currently happening for residential uses,
that that standards be established at a commission
level where the design professionals are.
And you were confident as staff that the design standards,
the objective design standards that the ADUs have been using
would be workable.
Yes, actually, and as Chair Ward mentioned,
you know, the with minor clarifications,
there is some, it's spelled out in the staff report,
but there is some language that we actually would like
to kind of tighten down both in the AD regulations
and in the SB 9, particularly with regard to,
I think it says roof form, that you have matching roof form
if you have a unit attached to the main house.
And, you know, that's, I would say,
little bit open to interpretation so we would like to you know match that or
state that to clarify it in a way that it is more objective you know it's
specific roof pitch or maybe materials you know things of that nature or you
know if you have a gable roof you match with a gable roof or a hip or you know
whatever. So I would say as long as staff is going to have to deal with it. I'm
Yeah, I'd go along with a
when I'd like to see
More restrictions, but I really don't have any suggestions on that and other than staff reviewing and making things
more objective
I'm an A on this one. I
I am too and the reason is I'd like to try to keep this as simple and uniform as possible and
since we established earlier that there's probably only a handful of these to try and create a lot of new and different
guidelines just for this really doesn't make practical sense for our staff and
for folks who are already struggling to try and you know figure out how this all works, so
You know the consistency it'd be I think really good to keep here. Thank you
All right, thank you. All right, again, I think we've got some good info for you there.
So I appreciate that. Okay, so now I think we're moving on. Okay, great. To the urban
lot split situation with minimum lot width and frontage. So current state law? Go ahead.
I was just going to say this really is a question of how wide does the flagpole have to be.
Okay all right well let's not get crazy then. You know I think that the fire district has a
lot to say about this personally so that's kind of where I fall on this because that's our biggest
concern really is safety. Anybody else chime in? Start with you Vice Chair Strongman. We'll go
down the row. Let the fire district determine it. Agreed yes agreed. Yeah I also agree
I actually am fine with the easement concept, but again you still need to meet a minimum fire district requirement. Thank you
Same. Okay, see that wasn't so hard. That's great
Okay, and then I think our second to last slide before the really exciting one
Access easement. Yeah, so this is really a question about if you have a flag lot does that flypole have to be you know
fee simple, you know, the flag owner owns the title,
or is it just an easement?
I'm not entirely sure why we drew a distinction
in our current urgency ordinance.
You know, state law allows us to do whatever we want
in this case, basically.
And I did talk with Public Works beforehand
and confirmed that regular subdivisions,
we allow access via an easement or fee simple.
So our recommendation is just to allow either.
Yeah, I would agree.
They're both enforceable property interests.
So I don't really have much to say about that.
We'll go down the road again.
Commissioner, Vice Chair Strongman, you're just going to skip
around and make it hard, OK?
No, I was just going to say that long and easement also
gives more flexibility.
That's how that 40 to 60 split might be made.
So go back and say, I don't care for easements
having litigated enough of them.
OK, so you say no to easements?
Prefer not easements.
OK.
That's a tough one.
I would say I would prefer no easement also,
but it's like a 4951 preference.
So both of them have problems, and both of them
solution so I'm on the fence. Well I think I already stated that I'm okay
with the easement. I would tend to agree with others in the Commission that an
easement is not probably a preferred situation but I'd like to fall back to
this as the minimum requirement so that in the event that somebody needed to
make that happen to make this work that it would be allowed subject to the fire
district same I I don't prefer it but if it's the only way it's gonna let it
happen then okay so that brings us to our last point of discussion here which
are the development impact fees and we've you know received some real-life
testimony on this point as well so that's helpful I believe state law allows
as the collection of them.
The interim ordinance requires
that there be development impact fees for SB9 units,
and they include both traffic impact
and affordable housing in lieu fees.
I think we're really mostly focusing
on the affordable housing in lieu fees, but not entirely.
So our options, and we have four this time,
so keep that in mind.
Keep the existing standards,
require development impact fees for SB9 units,
but exempt SB9 units that are smaller than 800 square feet,
reduce or waive the inclusionary housing in lieu fee
for SB9 units, but leave the other development impact fees
as they are, or reduce or waive all development impact fees
for SB9 units.
All right, so for me, I think it's kind of contrary
to the whole purpose of this,
to assess a large affordable housing in lieu fee
for a unit that is functionally
a very small affordable housing unit
that seems to completely undermine the whole purpose
of what we're doing here.
But at the same time,
I wouldn't want to reduce or waive all of them
if you're building a much larger unit on a very large lot
because that doesn't seem to,
it's not creating affordable housing.
So I would like to see some sort of, again,
flexibility or sliding scale of some sort.
So if you're building something that qualifies
as affordable housing by some definition,
and I don't think it should be
whether it's 800 square feet or not,
I think pure square footage is not really helpful
in that regard necessarily.
But I think that there should be a distinction
between a affordable housing unit being built
and one that is not.
And I am not in favor of assessing
affordable housing in Louis for an affordable housing unit that's that's
that doesn't fit in any of the ABCD but that's my opinion starting out I'll go
for option C I would prefer to waive the inclusionary housing but keep the
others the entire exercise of SP 9 is to increase the housing stock and whether
we start splitting hairs is whether this is affordable and this is not quite
affordable at 300 to 400 dollars a square foot construction not very much
is it going to be that affordable so I'm gonna go for B and C I think that the
whole idea of these SP9 units is that they will make more affordable housing
and otherwise. So inclusionary fee, I think, should not be applied to any of them.
But if they're 800 square feet or less, it seems to me, then you just get into, as we've
heard, just an economic, you know, consideration, that that can be a really, you know, difficult
to get over. So I would say no inclusionary housing fee for any SP9 but
if it's under square feet or less, no fees.
I'm kind of between the B and the C. I think the purpose of this is to get
at affordable housing, but I could see some greedy developer,
and there are greedy developers somewhere,
trying to squeeze the most out of it.
But perhaps rather than saying exempt SB9 units that
are smaller than 800, maybe we say 900 or 950.
So hybrid between B and C, I don't
know that we should just automatically exclude a unit
because it's an SP-9 unit, but based on the size of the unit,
probably exempt them from it.
So maybe we can go a little bigger than 800 feet
to allow someone more flexibility.
I mean, 1,000-foot unit is probably
going to end up being relatively in the Walnut Creek
market affordable.
So I'd be somewhere in that range.
I know that doesn't help you write it,
but we'll see what you come back with.
Actually, through the chair, just, and we don't have,
this is one where this is really a policy discussion
or a policy decision.
So we, staff have not made a recommendation,
but as an added data point,
the floor area limitations for ADUs,
which ranges from, I think it's 850 to 1,000 square feet,
depending on the size of the lot
and bedroom count on the rest.
There's a rough correlation with those size limits
and what meets what the current rental market,
there's a rough correlation between the size of those units
and what the current market rate rents in this market are
that are affordable to a moderate income household.
Meaning that, and this is why we can actually include
some ADUs as towards our, at least moderate
in some cases even low-income household unit production
for satisfying our arena and satisfying the state.
Oh, man, I'm really saying this poorly.
There's a general assumption that and this bears out
with some actual numbers that our current ADU limits
generally result in rents that are affordable to at least
moderate-income households.
And so, for example, if you're looking for something to say,
well, affordable units, even though they're
not income restricted, affordable units
don't have to pay the inclusionary fee.
You might want to consider tying that to the size limitations
for ADUs.
Are we permitted to exempt them if they agree to an income
limitation?
In other words, if they dedicate the unit,
their SB 9 unit to an affordable level by deed restriction,
can we do that?
Yes, absolutely.
And then exempt them from the,
if we're exempting them just because the size of the unit,
that doesn't necessarily dictate the rent
that they're gonna rent.
No, and that is very true.
So what we're talking about,
at least with regard to the inclusionary housing fees,
it is an in lieu fee,
it's a fee in lieu of actually providing
an income restricted unit.
And basically our current regulations
require that 10% of the units in a housing development
be restricted to incomes of moderate income households
or 7% for low income, there's different formulas.
And so somebody who's building under our current regulations
and SB9 unit, they do have the option
of just complying with our inclusionary housing requirements
by making it an income restricted unit.
They have to enter into an affordable housing agreement
with the city, and there's a whole process around that.
But they can do that, in which case they do not
have to pay the fee in lieu.
But generally, for a smaller number of units like this,
because of the way the in lieu fee is calculated,
it makes financial sense to just pay the in lieu fee.
OK, so based on thinking as you were talking,
I guess I would prefer B and just say 800 feet or 900 feet.
They build it, they are exempt.
So that's where I am.
So I'm a little bit different than everybody else in the group,
and that is to say that I think development impact
fees in the city of Walnut Creek and all over the state
of California are absolutely ridiculously high.
And as a result of their absolutely ridiculous high cost,
have driving prices for housing to be relatively unaffordable.
And it's a component.
There's all kinds of components.
Not the only thing.
However, we live in a state where
we've decided that we're going to have an impact fee regime,
and we're going to have the Mitigation Fee Act,
and we're going to spend a bunch of time and effort trying
to identify what kind of impacts housing has to our community,
and that a new housing unit is gonna pay
for its mitigate, its impact.
Now, I wish all the other uses and other industries
had to pay their all the impacts for the things that they do,
but they don't.
But if we're gonna live in a regime
where housing is gonna be in that way,
I don't see waving the standard for an SB9 unit
and saying, well, it has no impact
and it doesn't have to pay for its fair share.
Well, everything else does.
An SB9 unit is not an ADU.
It's a new residential unit.
And if it wants to be an ADU, then it can get the development impact fee and some of
the connection fee waivers that are subject to an ADU.
An SB9 unit is an additional unit on top of an ADU and on top of a junior ADU that somebody
can build.
And that's why I want them to be bigger.
I want them to be 1,200 square feet or 1,500 square feet or whatever so that they can afford
to benefit from the extra fees that they need to pay because they're a real residential
unit and not an ADU.
And just like we said, if they're of a certain size, does that make them affordable by design?
Well, I can't count them as affordable by design.
They're not deed restricted.
If you want to be affordable by design and get the benefit of not having to pay that
fee, be an ADU. Don't be an SB9 unit. Because the reason we should have this law is so that
people come in and put two SB9 units, an ADU and a junior ADU, and they do it on their
split a lot and do it side by side. We should have eight units on these lots, and they should
be crammed, and they should be incredibly, highly developed, and all of those units then
become affordable by design and we have a bunch of affordable housing by design.
And that's what this sort of wants to incentivize.
Now, I know we agree that that's incredibly unlikely for all the reasons we talked about,
but for me, if it's going to be an SB 9 unit, it's going to pay its mitigation fees or we
should all just agree that mitigation fees, development impact fees, including inclusionary,
is a stupid idea and get rid of the entire regime
and decide that we shouldn't be subsidizing
affordable housing because that just raises the unaffordability.
And so we get less and less small affordable units
and more unaffordability.
And so even though I believe that we
should get rid of all the fees, I'm actually
supporting that we keep the existing standard.
I wanted to, I love the Turner Center for housing.
They have amazing surveys.
And I've been following them about their affordability
by design, whether something is deed restricted
and runs with the land or not.
And so for a bit of context,
I just wanted to pull up the 2023 maximum level
rents by income category.
I think Andy had talked about the moderate.
So you're talking about a 1200 square foot house.
Let's just call it that, right?
That's the biggest size of an ADU.
So that's why I kind of went there.
Maximum number of units of bedrooms is say two for 1,200.
The moderate rent with roughly 3,600
for a moderate 110% medium AMI.
And so because of that reason,
because per the data of what roughly rents
in Walnut Creek are for a 1200 square foot house
and that it can be rented out
to meet that moderate AMI level.
I'm kind of a hybrid with what everyone is saying
that I also don't like impact fees, by the way, Peter.
So I feel like I'm paying $200,000 per home
of fees in another development.
But I propose if we did have to do it,
just like the ADU law says for 750 square feet or less,
if we did something here that was 1200 square feet or less,
you waive the inclusionary,
but you keep all the development impact fees
and anything greater,
you keep the development impact fees,
but then maybe reduce inclusionary.
So it's like a hybrid of what everyone just said.
All right. Is that helpful?
I'd like to ask for a little bit of clarification, and I'm sorry to drag this out.
So there definitely seems to be, I would say that I'm hearing that you're all looking at
the inclusionary fee differently than the other development impact fees, which, and those
other fees are, for these are basically the parkland dedication fee, which I just calculated
for a two-bedroom unit would be about eight grand and the traffic impact fee
which I was about to open that file up I think that one's maybe about half that
amount I can't recall so you know those are because the art fee generally
doesn't apply to these so there's those fees and then there's the inclusionary
in lieu fee which is can be substantial I think what I'm hearing from the
commission is at least with regard to the inclusionary fee, a majority consensus is
basically waive that fee for smaller units. And what is a smaller unit, I've been hearing
different numbers. My recommendation if you wanted to do a threshold of a smaller unit
would be to match that of the ADUs, kind of a keep it simple sort of a thing, but also
So there is actually some justification behind that, as explained earlier.
So I guess I would add, I want to break this into two questions, two parts.
One is with regard to the inclusionary fee, is that the consensus of the commission that
you know, waive it for the smaller units and that the smaller units generally is ADU-sized?
Yes.
Okay.
I think so, yeah.
I'm seeing enough nods, great.
And then for the other fees, you know, the parkland, and it's called parkland dedication
fee but you know we're generally not building new parks it's really going
into facilities in their existing parks and open space areas but for the parks
fees and the traffic impact fees does the Commission want those to just apply
to all SB 9 units wave them for some wave them for all where where do you
fall on that one yeah I'm trying to keep
I'd like to point out that we can deal with city fees, but on top of this, you got E.B.
Mudd, you got the sanitary district, and you got the schools.
We have no control over those.
Those are all huge.
Yeah.
Parkland dedication fee looks pretty nice when you got to pay an East Bay Mudd meter.
Yep.
Just remember that.
Okay.
Yeah.
It's hard for us to make anything important.
So, you couldn't pay the fees now, before we did.
Right.
Mediatorium.
So I just I I I have a feeling there was perhaps something said in jest but I
don't want to make that presumption with the Commission so is there a consensus
that the other fees park and traffic would apply to SB 9 units okay great
thank you okay all right well I think we did it I want to particularly thank you
Andy for this really excellent explanation and for guiding us through
this really complex issue is just amazing.
I have to share that with Heather Coleman.
My name is the staff contact on the staff report,
but that's because that's the template for our staff reports.
But I will say that she was the definitely
the author of that report.
I did a little bit of editing here and there,
but Heather was the author of that report,
and I think it was a great one.
So just wanted to credit his work right here.
Well, thank you to both of you.
Thank you, Heather, and thank you, Andy.
And I also want to commend this entire commission.
I think our conversation has been thoughtful and helpful.
And I think that we took a very difficult thing
and very seriously and we've really provided
some very good input based on our experience
and the large amount of time we all spend
looking at these things and thinking about them.
And I really think it's an honor
to serve on this commission with all of you.
And I really appreciate that.
I just wanna tell you that.
Very deep into one of the staff reports or one of the other exhibits was the
idea that on an SB 9 if you had two units on one lot you could sell both
differently the sell the house convey the house differently and not have us
be simple to the land and I would say that I don't like that idea.
Sounds very complicated creating little condo projects or something I don't know how that
would work exactly but well I can actually do know but I think it'd be hard to implement
so all right so I think we've accomplished our task here yes really great job really
appreciate everybody's hard work and effort on this so with that I think we we are done
with agenda item four right yes so are there any Commission considerations for agenda item
five you need to deal with today no okay and do we have any commission member and
staff reports or announcements none from staff okay any commissioners like to oh
actually one from staff all right very quick we'll be taking the a second I
think I mentioned this last week perhaps or the last meeting but we're gonna be
taking a second addendum to the adopted housing element to the City Council this
coming Tuesday. This provides some additional clarifying information and some greater specificity
in some of the housing programs as well as some strengthening of the housing programs
in response to the comment letter we received from HCD. So our intent is that with the adoption
of that addendum by the City Council, that we would be able to receive certification
of our housing element from the state. So just wanted to let you know about that.
So great news, so we'll keep our fingers and toes crossed here, so really appreciate
that.
Okay, and with that, I think our meeting is adjourned.
Thank you all.