All right good evening and welcome to the Thursday, September 14th,
2023 regular meeting of the Walnut Creek Planning Commission.
At this time I'll ask our Commission Secretary Andy Smith to please take the role.
Certainly, Commissioner Reiser? Here.
Commissioner Neding? Here.
Commissioner Lezak? Here.
Commissioner Anderson? Here.
Vice Chair Strongman? Here.
Chair Ward? Here.
And Commissioner Pickett is absent tonight but we do have a quorum with six.
Great, thank you very much.
All right, next up on our agenda is the consent calendar
And I'm going to confirm that we don't have anything on the consent calendar. Yes, that is correct. All right. Excellent
So at this point, we'd like to move along to agenda item three, which is public communication
The public communication portion of the meeting is reserved for comments about items not on the agenda
Which means comments which are not about the two permit appeals, which we're considering this evening
Under the Brown Act the Commission cannot act on items raised during public communications
But may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed
request clarification to refer the item to staff. Additionally, I would like to remind everyone that
not all speech is protected and that I will not tolerate or allow hate speech during public
comment at any meeting that I chair. Hate has no place in our community and our words must
reflect our community commitment to equity and inclusion for all. Are there any members of the
public who wish to comment at this time? And I would ask any member of the public who is attending
via Zoom which is to provide comment on items not on the agenda, please press the raise
hand button at this time. And I would also ask Naveed back in our AV room if you could
please enable my ability to let them in. And I'm not seeing any raised hands.
Okay, I don't see anybody in the chambers either. Last call. All right. Thank you for
that. We will move along then to agenda item four, which is public hearings. I'd like to
start by asking if any member of the Commission has had any ex-party
communications related to items on this evening's agenda. Okay Commissioner
Neeting. I was contacted by someone but did not actually have a conversation
with them. That does not sound like a communication. I emailed back saying I
don't have a staff report. Okay. And that was it. I'm just like, okay. I don't think
that rises to the level of having to recuse yourself. Maybe the city
attorney can weigh in on this. I agree. All right thank you. All right well then
let's let's move right ahead to our first our first item which is the Suva
seven foot tall fence minor use permit and drip line encroachment permit
application appeal and we'll have first a staff presentation by Brittany Lenore
our associate planner.
Good evening commissioners, Brittany Lenoir, associate planner with the city of Walnut
Creek Planning Department.
The project before you is an appeal of a zoning administrator decision to approve a minor
use permit and a drip line encroachment permit for a new seven foot fence proposed at 2272
Walnut Boulevard.
This site is owned R20 which is a single family residential zoning district and is designated
single-family low under the general plan. This designation is intended to act as a
transition between the typical suburban single-family neighborhood and outlying
rural residential areas. This site is approximately 45,000 square feet and is
adjacent to Walnut Boulevard at the front and Homestead Avenue at the back.
The property is currently developed with a single-family single-story home. A
A taller fence along the side and rear property lines adjacent to neighbors is consistent
with typical lower density single family residential development and the allowance
for a seven foot redwood fence would let the applicant better utilize their home by being
able to enclose the backyard area and provide privacy.
The new fence is proposed to be seven feet tall at the north side of the property adjacent
to 1435 Homestead Avenue, that's the property at the top.
And that will be a solid six foot redwood fence
with one foot of lattice along the south,
the house to the bottom,
and the east adjacent to Homestead Avenue.
That fence will be a solid seven foot redwood fence
with no lattice.
So the fence at portions of the existing creek
will be required to not have kickboards at the bottom
to ensure it does not interfere with the drainage capabilities and water flow.
And I'm sorry, there's also a oak tree at the back adjacent to Homestead and a
trip line encroachment permit is needed for that. So for fences over six feet at
the rear and side property lines in residential areas, those require a minor
use permit. This permit is decided on by the zoning administrator following a
public hearing and upon the findings that the fence will not infringe upon the visual
openness of surrounding area, be detrimental to health, safety, or welfare of people in
the neighborhood, or to detract, impair, or destroy the characteristics of the established
area.
So on April 12th of this year, the zoning administrator held that public hearing and
heard comments from the neighbors both in support and against the fence and ultimately
decided that the fence complied with the required findings and approved both the minor
use permit and the drip line encroachment permit.
So within 10 days of that decision on April 21, Mr. Miller filed an appeal citing concerns
around the proposed fence's impact to the creek channel and impeding drainage.
So appeals are considered de novo hearings.
So tonight the Planning Commission will consider the appeal as a new matter and review the
the application in its entirety
as if the zoning administrator did not,
hearing did not occur and may use its discretion
to either approve or deny the application as is
or to approve it with modifications.
So Mr. Miller has provided a letter
detailing the reasons for the appeal,
which is included as attachment six
of the staff report package.
He states that there are concerns
with the fence design at the areas
where it crosses the creek channel and creek bed,
which could disrupt the flow of water in the creek channel.
I do wanna emphasize that he has clearly stated
he has no objections with the fence height.
So to address the concerns noted in the appeal,
staff recommends adding a condition
that will clarify that the fence will be designed
and cited to not impact the creek channel or creek bed.
Specifically, where it crosses the creek,
No part of the fence structure,
including posts or other supporting members,
shall be located below the top of Bank of the Creek.
And final plan shall be approved
by Planning Division staff prior to construction.
Additionally, this fence has been reviewed
by the City Engineering Division,
and the applicant has been in contact
with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Control Board,
who verified that the details of the fence
appear to clear span the creek and include no posts
or low boards within the channel
and that this proposed design would appear to allow
for free passage of stream flow beneath the fence.
And so as such, staff recommends
that the planning commission move to adopt the resolution,
denying the appeal and upholding the zoning administrator's
approval of the minor use permit
and drip line encroachment permit
with the addition of a condition related to the design
and location of the fence
as it relates to the creek bed and channel.
And so thank you for your time commissioners.
I'm available for any questions you might have
and the appellant and applicant are also here as well.
Okay, any questions from the commission?
The condition number two
that you listed in the staff report.
Yes.
Mentioned the guarantee period
for the tree protection zone.
Yeah.
Can you explain what the guarantee is?
what triggers a violation of that guarantee
and what the response would be.
Let me just go to that condition one second.
And I will add also we have a representative
from our Public Works Engineering Division,
Kathleen Terenzio, who might be able to assist
in answering this question as well if Miss Lenoir wishes.
Yes, I would need Kathleen to show me.
Kathleen, come on down.
You could turn on your microphone and camera, please.
we can hear you but we cannot see you right in condition in condition number
two it indicated that I would require the guarantee period regarding the oak
tree it mentions outlined in the municipal code but not everybody is
familiar with the entire municipal code so if you could just explain with the
guarantee what that entails and what happens if the guarantee is not met. The
guarantee period is if the health of the tree is not met at the end of the
guarantee period then the applicant would need to pay the valuation of the
if it had declined or died during that guarantee period.
Okay, thank you.
You're welcome.
Okay, do we have any other questions for Ms. Lenar
or Ms., I'm sorry, Kathleen.
Sorry, your last name is very small in my, I think.
Um.
Cold eyes.
Okay, sounds good.
Commissioner Neating.
Kathleen, just to confirm, it sounds like the design of the fence that I'm
looking at from Tri-Valley Fence Works, where it says no kickboard, that the
elevation of that would clear the hydraulic grade line, and that's
essentially what the concerns are for a heavy storm, correct, to allow the proper
drainage? Correct, to allow the flows in the creek or the drainage ditch to flow
unimpeded. And that's, I'm assuming, that the 100-year HGL? Yeah, it would be the
100-year HGL, correct. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions? No. Okay, thank
you very much for that presentation. We appreciate that. So, at this time, I'd
like to open the public hearing and, okay, doing good, right?
And it looks like the appellant gets 15 minutes
for their presentation.
All right, so if you'd like to come up and address us wherever
you are, excellent.
Good evening.
My name is Bob Miller.
I hope I don't take my whole 15 minutes
because I don't think there's that much material here to cover.
My issue, as staff has pointed out,
out is only with the hydraulics and the water flow.
I've lived in that house for 25 years,
and I've seen a number of problems with that creek.
Over the years, it gets blocked up.
It's not properly maintained by the downstream folks,
and it connects at two points.
There's a fairly large drainage ditch
that comes down from the houses above.
I don't know if you can see that on the materials
that they've provided to you, and there's a secondary
that comes in from my upstream neighbors behind me.
So there's a sort of a bad engineering problem there,
And it has happened over the last 25 years
that where it's not properly maintained,
it gets, you know, a lot of material comes down,
leaves, branches, and they get stuck somewhere downstream.
So it's very important to me that that creek be maintained
and that there need be no obstacles on both sides
because on my side and then on the other side
of the property, I believe the fence
is gonna be down there too.
So that's always been my issue with this,
is that there's enough room for the water to flow.
I've seen it quite high.
I don't know where the hundred year flood line is,
but I've lived there in 25 years
and it's flooded more than once.
So I don't know technically what that means,
but I think it's higher than what they're saying,
but that fact notwithstanding,
the issue is the flood line
and the making sure that this is designed
so that that fence does not present any additional obstacles.
And I presented, I mean, I think there's a practical issue
of just that Mr. Suven, not in his development,
not create problems for his neighbors.
And also there's state law issues,
which the water board has already intervened once
when he tried to do things with that creek,
that they've stopped him from doing that.
So that's why they're involved here now,
is that they've looked at this issue.
I believe staff's approach on the condition
that they've proposed is an adequate solution
and I've endorsed that.
I just want to make sure that this issue
just does not create future problems for me
or for other neighbors where the flood line,
this issue isn't addressed and obstacles come down
and they're caught somewhere on a pole or whatever.
One point I want to make is that
the way the original approval was,
there's a standard detail that's attached
and it's eight feet on center.
And that's really the problem here.
And I think staff has addressed that in their report
where they talk about the standard detail
doesn't address that.
That was one of the questions I raised
during the zoning administrator hearing.
And they didn't address it.
I asked Mr. Suve's attorney if they would do that privately
and I never got a response.
So that's why I'm here to make that appeal
is that to be clear at that location
where the two creeks join, I put a tape there,
I'd say it's 13 feet or something like that.
So it has to be clear that it's gonna span both creeks
because as you can see from the picture,
which I submitted, there's water in there a lot of the time.
And when the water's high,
the whole thing's filled with water.
So as long as staff enforces that condition,
I think that is a sensible solution,
that they make sure that the fence posts
are outside of the top of the bank.
That's where the bed and bank of the creek.
I don't have any more to say unless you have questions
for me or I can come back and respond later.
All right.
the time for uh why don't you just stay there in case we do have questions for you because this
is that time um so let me let me just I'll start us off by saying am I hearing you correctly that
you don't have an objection to the current um the current resolution that's been proposed by the
staff with that new condition yes that's fine I agree I agree to that okay all right do we have
any other questions from commissioners for the appellant? No? All right thank you very much,
you can sit down and we appreciate that. All right so at this time we have if any member of the
public would like to go ahead. I apologize, the applicant now has an opportunity with 15 minute
speaking time. Oh I'm sorry, okay I missed that. It's now time for the applicant, my apologies,
so you get your 15 minutes.
Good evening, my name, pardon me,
my name's Dean Christofferson, I'm counsel for Mr. Sue.
I represented him also at the last hearing
we had on this matter.
My comments, I think, will be quite brief.
It sounds like we've got a sort of a consensual resolution
to this now, given what Mr. Miller has just indicated.
I will indicate that I did meet out on site
with city staff a couple of weeks ago at their request.
And we measured off the distance.
There was originally some language
in an earlier iteration of the report
that indicated that the span would be 14 feet, which
actually goes.
There's a jog in this fence line due to some historic property
line issues.
But this basically goes from the corner.
There'll be a post on the corner, which is two or three
feet to the west of the flow of the creek,
all the way across to where city staff felt
the top of the creek bank was on the other side.
So when I measured it, when I was out originally
doing my review, I thought it was maybe 11 or 12 feet.
They said 14.
We're fine with 14.
The notion being that we'll put steel, a steel-eye beam
embedded or encased in 2x4s or 2x6s,
and run that both as the top and the bottom stringer
so that there won't be concerns about sagging.
So our understanding is that so long as that's gone from one
that location that we talked about,
which, as I said, a couple feet to the west of the flow,
to another location which I think is marked
in one of the exhibits as the top of the bank.
And we were just looking at it today being 14 feet away.
We're perfectly fine with that.
The one thing that we're still a little bit concerned about
and would certainly appreciate your clarification on
is in the original approval, it indicated
that there would be this section, a fence that
crosses the creek, and then on either side of that there would be no kickboards below.
Now that we're spanning the entire creek, it's unclear to us whether or not that still
has salience and particularly since there is not really a section of fence that continues
on in a linear fashion to the west, it turns the corner.
So if that could just be clarified so we know exactly what it is we need to meet when we
submit plans that would be very helpful to us but beyond that I'm happy to take
any questions we appreciate all the time and energy that everyone's put in we
feel as though we've come to a conclusion now that hopefully meets
mr. Miller's concerns and so there we have it so I'm happy to take any
questions from anyone on the on the Commission if there are any yeah thank
very much. Do we have any questions from commissioners? No. No, no, no. Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. Can we, can we look at the resolution to make sure that the question with regard to the kick boards at the bottom are that's clear. It seemed clear to me, but I'm, I'm not sure.
Yeah, certainly and actually while you're taking public testimony staff should have time to be able to review that
Resolution and be able to be able to speak to that following public testimony. Excellent. All right
That being said and then this is the time and any member of the public who wishes to provide public comment can come
We have a three-minute limit and if you could fill out the yellow card if you're in the chambers
That would be excellent. If you're on zoom, we will
Otherwise identify you
there's some up here they were in the back but just come on up and you can
fill it out after you'd like so I agree I am on the other side of Bob Miller so
impacted by the creek issue but my do you just tell us your name for the record
please and for kind of fun okay thank you and I did not read all the stuff
because I just saw the notice on the tree so beside the creek issue because
my fence is on the other side behind Bob Miller's house I have a question
about the tree where is this tree that we are trying to protect with the drip
line is it the tree inside the property or is it outside the property on homestead
if it is on the property right now Mr. Suva is in process of killing about a
dozen trees redwood and oak trees it might already be gone so my concern is
about the trees on that property we have other houses that have been built on
older properties where there were older trees a lot of them have been cut but
They were preserved some old trees right now on this property
There's barely any tree left and it's in the process of cutting the redwood trees as well
So this particular oak tree that we are trying to preserve. Where is it? So
question if you can answer now or
Okay, thank you for your comment Andy can we get do we have a quick answer to that question first
I just would want to note that the
The tree in question with regard to the drip line encroachment permit, it's just for control
out construction under the tree but not to remove the tree. And as far as whether it is on the
property that I would actually I'm getting a nod from Miss Lenore that yes it is located on this
property. Great, thank you very much for answering that. Appreciate that. Do we have any other members
of the public who'd like to comment at this time? And I would ask any members of the public attending
via Zoom, wishing to provide comment, please press the raise hand button now to let us
know and we'll let you in.
I'm not seeing anybody raise their hands.
Okay.
Great.
Thank you.
So now is the time we would usually let the applicant come back.
Are we letting both the app, the appellant and the original applicant or?
Fortunately, there's a policy on that.
So after individual speakers rebuttle by the applicant followed by rebuttal by the appellant,
five minutes each.
All right, so now is the time if there's any rebuttal by the applicant, this would
be your time.
Would you like to come up and address anything or not?
Applicant first, then appellant.
I'm sorry, no, unless there are further questions, we're prepared to submit and we appreciate
your time.
Thank you very much.
Great, thank you very much.
Would the appellant like to make any additional comments?
Thank you.
Excuse me.
Just one more thing.
On this question of the two panels on the side,
I think that's important because if,
and I have seen the water above the bed and bank more than once
and as I said in my 25 years regardless
of this 100-year flood thing, so I don't know how they make
that calculation and there was some concern of mine
that if there wasn't an area where it was above the bed
and bank that it would be created like a dam at that point
when the water gets above, and it has nowhere to go,
but on my property, it's supposed to go downstream,
but if you put right at the top of the bed and bank,
and it's above the bed and bank,
it will create a dam there, and it will flood my yard.
So I got some comfort from the fact that there was going
to be an area where there'd be a little bit of release
so it could get back into the channel at that point.
So I would advocate that the original condition be maintained
for each panel on each side, because that's where the,
You know, that's the low point right there is on either side.
And as I understand it, there's a panel that's,
the water comes down at one point and then there's a water comes
down at another, you know, at this right angle.
So on either one of those right angles, there's one panel
that was going to have that bottom panel not there.
So I think that's another flood measure that's important
that we maintain here.
So I would urge you to keep that condition.
So have you reviewed the revised drawing that was submitted
with all of our materials?
I thought there was a question as to, I think there was a question
as to whether or not there would be a change to that
from Mr. Souza's attorney.
Is that not correct?
The additional condition was included in the presentation.
The additional condition is fine.
What I'm talking about is Mr. Souza's attorney's request
that there be the side panels on either side
of that 14 foot span.
There's supposed to be no bottom piece.
All right, it appears that Ms. Lenoir
is gonna come and resolve all of this for us right now,
so that would be excellent if you could possibly do that.
Thank you.
Yeah, so if you see on page three of the staff report,
condition number four, the portion of the fence located
over the drainage stream and any drainage easements
on the property should not include kickboards
as demonstrated in exhibit A,
which is that cross section of the fence in the detail.
In that one, again, that is on the other side
of the property where the channel
does not have that other, the perpendicular one,
so it's a smaller bed and bank at around eight feet.
And so at this other side
where it spans approximately 14 feet,
there would be no kickboards at that part
of top of bank to top of bank.
But we can further clarify the condition
to not have kickboards along the top of Benk,
top of Benk and the extent beyond for both situations.
And I would just like to add that there's a drawing
in the plans with the page that's labeled as exhibit eight,
which is page 11.
You'll notice the fence plan drawing
of the lower left corner,
where it shows there's the 14 foot span
where there'll be no kickboard plus the two panels
on either side of that where there'll be no kickboard.
And so this is part of the exhibit A referenced
in the draft resolution.
Okay, yeah, so that went to my question.
So my question is, it appears to me from this drawing
that's being presented to us in connection
with the resolution that contains the new conditions
that that concern was already addressed
and is already-
Yes.
to change anything that has been presented in exhibit eight
or otherwise in order to address that concern.
That's my understanding,
but we can further clarify for Mr. Suva,
if he needs it, that based off his exhibit,
there'd be no kickboards at top of vink, top of vink,
and then one section on either side of that fence
in both situations where the creek crosses his property.
But it's really just clarifying.
We're not changing anything.
No, we would not be changing anything.
It's just more words.
Yes.
unless they have other things they want in.
Well, I'm not in favor of just adding a whole bunch of things in that haven't been considered
measured or otherwise.
Correct, and I'm not an engineer, so I don't know.
Exactly.
So, I guess I'll ask the question again.
Does Exhibit A reflect?
A does not measure lee like number reflect both situations
where the Creek crosses Mr. Suva's property
because on the other side of the property
adjacent to Mr. Miller's property,
there is a Creek that crosses diagonally and horizontally
and it makes a T.
So the channel at that part is a lot wider
than on the other side of his property where it's skinnier.
And because of that,
that exhibit doesn't clearly reflect both situations.
And so that's why we added in this condition
to clarify that maybe this detail
does not reflect both situations,
but that's why the fence posts
and any supporting columns will not be
in the bank or channel.
Okay.
I mean, it seems pretty clear to me
that there's no kickboard allowed,
either in the portion that is over the creek
for the panel on either side of it.
Is that correct?
Yes.
Okay.
If I could just.
Commissioner Anderson.
Yeah, just a little bit more clarification.
So the way I look at the diagram,
if the span over the creek is 14 feet,
and you've got eight foot panels on either side,
that'd be another 16 feet.
So basically a 30 foot section
that would not be blocked for the channel
or I guess it's a two by eight,
so an eight inches above the ground level.
Yes, on that on Mr. Miller's side of the property.
Right, on the tops of the top side of the creek.
Yes.
So okay, so it actually could flood a little bit more
than coming over the edge of the creek
and still flow through.
Yes.
Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Needing.
If I may, I think what needs to just be clarified on here
is the condition is great.
It's not gonna be located over the drainage stream,
which is perfect.
I think the only thing that's missing here
is consistency with what
Regional Water Quality Control Board said,
which is essentially they want you to stay away
from the bed and bank,
because if you don't stay away from the bed and bank,
then you trigger section 1602,
which is like in stream but alteration agreement.
And so if I'm not mistaken, Chair,
I think all of this can be clarified
as long as it just says,
as demonstrated to clear the bed and bank,
which is 14 feet,
because the engineers went out there
from top of bank to top of.
Right, it's bed and bank.
So CDFW and the Regional Water Quality Control Board
have a very clear, same thing with Army Corps,
very clear of how to define bed and bank
and it also includes riparian features.
So to me that seems like a very easy,
and the engineer just also said that the top
should clear the hydraulic grade line for any flooding.
So I think the fact that the top clears it,
and then as long as we just include right chair
that the span also meets the bed and bank width
and that the top clears the necessary hydraulic grade line.
To me, the design seems like it's meeting
what I'm hearing everyone say that is needed.
Okay.
Sorry, I got engineering on you.
I love it.
Okay, so can the staff make sure
that our resolution as clarified or?
If I may ask, Mr. Needing,
what would you need me to revise?
The condition is perfect.
I think you just to want one of my other fellow commissioners
just noted that it didn't that the actual exhibit eight
didn't doesn't show the span.
So whether it's in the condition or just in the drawing,
if they can just put the width of just,
you can have two arrows that said top of that end bank
and that's the width.
Okay. Right.
And that and that will meet what Katie
at the regional water quality control board
was essentially stating in whole correspondence to the city.
And that's essentially why she's saying it.
No structures within better bank
because she doesn't want anyone,
she doesn't want to trigger 1602
and require a Lake and Stream Trait agreement.
Okay.
So it looks to me like that's paragraph 10 on page five
of the.
Yeah, condition section three decision
where it crosses the creek,
no part of the fence structure
including posts or other supporting members shall be located below the top
of the bank top of Bank of the Creek the top of the Bank of the Creek so it
should commissioner needing can help here we want it to not only say yeah I
think so yeah page five and we want it we need a little more than just the top
of the Bank of the Creek it needs to state that it's not that it clears the
Does it work for the Commission if that that condition just reads shall be
located below the top of the bed and the bank of the creek? Shall not be, yeah no
part of the fence structure shall be located below the top of the bed or bank
of the creek. Right and then and then for the other neighbors that were concerned
about the hydrology which the engineer the city engineer already said that it
clears if you really wanted to you could say that the top will clear the hydraulic
ridline and that's it and then you that way you address your hydro hydraulic
concerns and any resource permitting concerns all in one not the top the
bottom of the fence oh sorry okay the bottom of the top tired mom there's the
there's the hydraulic which the engineer city and one all engineering on you yeah
doesn't happen every day. No. Oh, thank you. Okay, have we done it here? I will
review this with the engineering division as well, but yes, I think I
understand. Okay, but we need a resolution for this evening. Do you want me to
read that? Yes. Do you want to reread Section 10? Yes, if you could. I think as it reads now, Section 10
states, where it crosses the creek, no part of the fence structure, including
posts or other supporting members shall be located below the top of the bed or bank of the creek.
Bottom of the fence shall be above the hydraulic grade line. Final plans shall be approved by
planning division staff prior to construction. So the city engineer will have to clarify which
hydraulic grade line she said 100 year but just clarify it with her. Would you like to revise the
the condition to read Planning and Engineering Division, shall we? Yes, okay,
I think that as long as my other commissioners and chair and vice-chair
agree with me. Yeah, I think that's that's a good idea. Okay, thank you.
All right, where are we? We're still questioning. Okay. Are we still in comment
period? Yes no we're yes no we we are we've passed through the rebuttal period
the if I recall correctly the applicant waved their time and then the
appellant has already taken their time okay questions have been asked and now
there's an opportunity for deliberation by the Commission okay and and although
it might be slightly out of order now that we've done some adjustment I just
want to make sure that there aren't additional comments from either the applicant or the
appellant with regards to the new language that we put in.
Well, I have to admit that some of the language that's just been suggested wasn't something
that I had contemplated and frankly I don't even grasp because I wasn't given an opportunity
to sort of bone up on what that all means.
I don't know whether that means we need to have a hydrologist come out and determine
where the the hydraulic grade line is or whether that's something that the city
sets I mean it and is that for the entire fence or is that for a section of
the fence I mean we've sort of gone far afield from the issue of whether or not
we were taking off kickboards off the bottom of sections that were adjacent to
something far more scientific and beyond my pay grade frankly it's only the
portion where it crosses the creek.
That's the first clause of paragraph 10.
And my understanding, and perhaps Commissioner Needing
has more information than I do it,
but that's a measurement from the bank.
It's not a date for a whole nother report.
Yeah, and that's why the engineers,
if the engineers already went out there and measured that,
which is how you were gonna span it anyways,
that is usually supposed to contain
hydraulic grade line for flooding so I don't see why the the engineer who
whoever was that went out it's essentially providing you the clarity
that you needed you wanted to know how high and how wide well we do want to
know that we want to know we just want to sort of understand what that means
and and obviously in a way that is you know that we can address as I said I
I wasn't, you know, I'm not a hydrologist,
nor do I play one on TV.
So I'm not really prepared to speak to what that means.
If what occurred during my meeting with city staff
a couple of weeks ago, takes that into account,
I mean, honestly, it looked to me,
although I, you know, far be it from me to speak for them,
my observations seem to be something
it was a little more sort of rough cut. I mean the 14 feet was 14 feet because it
went to a corner not because it was on the on the you know sort of the height
of the rise of the of the side of the creek. It just was convenient I mean I
even said well there's a two-foot window here between the corner and the edge of
the bank and we just put in a panel here and only by 12 feet of steel and then I
And I just said, it's probably not worth the trouble, but it's those sorts of things
that were, I was trying to come at it from a more practical perspective in just having
those discussions.
We don't want this to be complicated.
We want everybody to sort of come away from this where this is all put behind us.
One thing that I would just note, and well, I won't even go there.
It just is, perhaps it's something that I can have a conversation with engineering then
and just get clarity from them on exactly what it was, but I guess having heard all
of this dialogue I'm still unsure whether the preexisting condition with regard
to removal of the two kickboards kicks in beyond this language or whether this subsumes that.
and so
Because it sounds like what we've done here is to just make sure that it's as high as it needs to be for anything that ever
Comes along
Then are we doing that too or is that?
is that
done away with by
Compliance with this particular term well so my understanding and I'm not an engineer, but I am a lawyer
So that probably means you and I are gonna make this completely complicated no one will understand it, but
But my understanding is that this measurement allows us to tell you that it's going to be
five feet or some
Actual number so that you will know exactly where to put that bottom steel reinforced
bottom fence
Whatever the spam thing is called. So we'll submit our plan to
Planning and engineering and they'll come back and say that bottom piece needs to be so many feet
at a certain grade point or a certain GPS coordinate
or whatever it needs to be, you know.
Based on what the HGL is at that particular point.
So it is my understanding that that gives you
quite a bit of clarity with regard to exactly
where that fence need, what the fence looks like
and how it's constructed, if I'm incorrect.
But that's just bank to bank.
that's right and then the the panels next to it would be the same right so
so there's one there's one grade that would be I mean we can't go below that
recognizing also that this is on we're going up the side of a hill here we're
crossing a Creek at a particular point yes nothing's really particularly
linear here.
Well, I think we're going to make it linear with straight lines and it needs to be a certain
number of feet and that will be determined where the HDL line is by the engineering and
planning department.
Okay.
So they'll advise us of that and then we'll be able to go from there and construct based
upon that.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Yeah.
And what I was going to say is when I look at this drawing, it's making it seem like the
engineer was agreeing that the kickboard allowed you to already have that
clearance because that drawing shows a no-kickboard. Okay, is there any other
question or comment? I'll move the resolution with the changes made by the
City Attorney for condition 10. Andy's twitching here. If I may hopefully not
make things more complicated. I've been chatting with Kathleen Tarantino, our engineer, and she
actually would like to suggest some simpler language that would hopefully address all of this
if she may. I've still got her. I think I still have her here on Zoom. Yeah, if that would please
the Chair and the Commission. Yes, please. We'd like to hear it. Great. Thank you. Go ahead, Kathleen.
I think maybe not so much a compromise, but just to maybe simplify this and to accommodate
what Kay Hart of the Regional Water Quality Control Board said was to add in the language
about you know the structural elements of the fence being outside of the bank and outside
of the top of bank and that's what that's when my colleague and I were out in the field
the other a week. That's what we measured basically from out a buffer period outside
of the top of the bank spanning both forks of the waterway and that was about 14 feet.
So I think if we just add that language we don't need to have the language in there about
the hydraulic grade line and then you know to clarify also the kicker board would I think
as Commissioner Anderson noted it would be there be no kicker board under over
that 14 foot span and also the two adjacent 8 foot span so a total of 30
feet would not have kicker board and would also allow for water to pass
through under the fence. Okay thank you. So based on what I just heard from
Kathleen I think the the issue of top of bed or bank is already covered in the
language that was read into the record and so maybe there's just one more
sentence in section 10 that states that there shall be no kicker board for a
span of the 14 feet over the bed and bank and eight feet on each side I mean
I prefer that it just said that the panel that spans the creek and then the
panel on each side because apparently the sites not you know a perfect square
and so you know if it's seven feet I don't want to tie somebody into something
that doesn't fit the site. I mean the idea is that the two panels on each side
don't have the kicker board to allow kind of this overflow. So another sentence
saying there shall there shall be no kicker board on the panel that spans the
creek on any panel that spans the creek and on either on and on the panel on
on either side.
Right, I mean the drawing already shows that.
Right.
We can add a sentence if you desire to.
I mean, I thought the drawing was clear, but.
I'll modify the motion with that added sentence.
Okay.
I think based on all the discussion,
maybe we can ask the applicant
if they think they have some clarity here.
We're fine with that so long as the language
that was just recited replaces the previous language
about the hydraulic line.
Is that what I'm understanding to occur?
Yeah, I think that's fine.
That language would be replaced,
an additional language would be added
with regard to the site analysis.
I just want to make certain
that the commission is understanding.
We're talking about a crossing the creek
in an east-west fashion.
So we'll have the 14-foot span crossing the creek.
there's there's a creek coming in a creek bed coming in sort of like this
and another coming in like this is that accurately describe it mr. Miller okay
and then so the first panel beyond the creek bank to the east then won't have a
kickboard then the since it's a 90 degree turn at the west side of the 14
foot panel, the first panel going north to south beyond that won't have a pickle board.
Is that...
Am I describing that in a way that...
Well, I'm only talking about on your side.
That's what I'm addressing right now.
Okay.
But it's the same, it's the same, as you can.
Yeah, I'm...
I think that that's clear because we were provided a photo that shows the crossing of
the creek, but I appreciate your clarification because it's not exactly as
the exhibit shows because the exhibit shows it as if the entire thing is
straight. You're just pointing out to the group that at that point that
that's where the point at the point of the crossing, there's a 90 degree that
now the fence goes the other direction, and it is my understanding based on what
we've talked about that that section being the one of the next section on
that side also does not have a kick-apboard. Correct I just want to make
sure everyone understood that because it's a little unusual and just the way
that it will work but be that as it may that's fine with us so long as that's
acceptable to to the board and others so. Great thank you very much we appreciate
that. I'm sorry. Brian, you have to come up and speak in the microphone please. When we're talking before about the 14 feet and the
feet and the eight feet. I thought that was appropriate, but if the panel is seven feet
that's fine, but I want to make sure it's not like a one-foot panel, or I don't want
any gamesmanship on this issue, so just to be clear about that. So the engineer is going
to review that, and that's the understanding. Okay, thank you.
What do you got first? I'm going to be honest here. We may need to take a five-minute recess
and come up with- Let's take a five-minute recess so we can make sure this resolution
this drafted correctly. So we'll do that now. Okay, so we're back.
Everybody's back. And I think our current status is we have a
motion on the table, but that we've agreed to an amendment, a
friendly amendment of that and that the city attorney is going
to read that to us right now.
Great. So we have we tried to simplify this we have some
proposed language for that would replace condition number 10. And
it would read, there shall be no fence structure located
within the better bank of any creek.
There shall be no kickboards located within eight feet
of either side of said bed or creek.
Oh, sorry, let me start again.
This is the new condition.
There shall be no fence structure located
within the better bank of any creek, period.
There shall be no kickboards located within eight feet
of either side of the Banker bed of any Creek.
And final plan shall be approved by the Planning Division
and Engineering Division staff prior to construction.
I accept that.
I got a comment.
I think what was just explained to us or clarified
was that when the fence turns,
It crosses the creek, and then the fence turns.
So at that section, if you looked at the photo
that's in the package, that section of the fence
is now going to parallel the creek.
And so if it can't be within eight feet of the creek,
now you're suggesting that the entire section of the fence,
you've created a slightly different problem
that I think we were hoping to simplify instead.
And I also thought we were trying to avoid
a definitive distance like eight feet
because of the sectionality of this.
So the idea might be within the section,
spanning the creek and within one panel
on either side of the span.
And that might indicate in a way
what we mean by span versus the creek
and certainly open to the applicant's feedback
in terms of whether that sounds acceptable.
Again, we're trying to find something that's simple
that clarifies what we're talking about
because again, the exhibit isn't quite right
and we're trying to make this easy.
That's my understanding as well,
that we're looking at just the side panel
and the span panel as opposed to a particular measurement.
So can we just take out the eight feet part
and just say there'll be no kick board, kick, what are they?
Kick boards.
Kick boards, not the things used in the pool,
were you, um, um, swim mom, sorry.
So they there shall be no kickboards either in the span panel or either side panel
Or either adjacent panel either adjacent panel
You have to speak into the microphone so we can hear you
Perhaps it was just my hearing this but as I was listening
It sounded to me like it was it read that there could be no fence within the bed of the creek
Which to my lay ear means there can be no fence structure from the one bank to the next bank
Above the creek. That's that's the way I was posed. I believe not the fence above the
Our intention, all right, let's read it again
Okay, let's take another five minute because it's not really at that point it's not a it's a it's a bridge
it's just a bridge for very small animals to cross okay we're back again
and I think our status is similar to what it was previously we have a motion
on the table that has been agreed to be amended and the city attorney is about
to give us that all right we're gonna we're gonna take another shot at
condition number ten again I'm gonna read it from the top and this would
replace all of the language that's been previously discussed. Where it crosses
the creek no part of the fence structure including posts or other
supporting members shall be located below the top of the bank of the creek.
There shall be no kicker boards on either side of the adjacent fence panels
to a distance as determined by the city engineer. Final plans shall be approved
by Planning and Engineering Division staff prior to construction.
Good to me, any comments from anybody?
I'll accept that modification.
Excellent.
All right.
I'll second it.
Thank you, we have a motion and a second.
So, Commission Secretary, will you please record the vote?
Certainly.
Commissioner Reiser?
Yes.
Commissioner Needing?
Yes.
Commissioner Koenzak?
Yes.
Commissioner Anderson?
Yes.
Vice Chair Strongman?
Yes.
And Chair Ward?
Yes.
The motion carries.
Great, thank you very much,
and thank you everybody for your helpful comments.
appreciate it. Madam chair if I may note I will be recusing myself for the next
item on the agenda which means I will remove myself from this chamber I'll
come back afterwards. Assistant City Attorney Hickey will be taking my place
in terms of being able to answer questions he'll run the timer and will
call in speakers. Naveed back in our AV room will actually handle the operation
of Zoom for us so I'm not throwing too many things over to my compatriots so I
just wanted to take like three people to replace you Andy right okay that's fine
as long as you come back after yes I'll come back all right excellent thank you
all right people are going to band together see if we can do this at our
mighty leader here all right so we're moving on to item 4b I believe it's
pronounce Lee Lee residence. Yes. Okay seven foot tall fence minor use permit
appeal and first we'll have a staff presentation by Gerardo Victoria our
assistant planner. Yes thank you. Gerardo Victoria assistant planner community
development department. Before I start I did have a bit of a housecleaning item
that I want to pass out to the commissioners. I did make this
available to the public at the front but since the agendas were passed out and
published online we've received five emails all in support of the leaf fence
so I just wanted to pass that thank you okay so we're here for the minor use
permit application appeal for a seven-foot fence project IDY 23029 the
The project site is located at 689 Teak Court.
As you can see here, there's a picture of the front of the property, the single family
residence.
It's a six-foot fence with a one-foot lattice in the street side yard at 689 Teak Court.
The history of the applicant filed for a minor use permit on March 29, 2023.
The zoning administrator approved the minor use permit on June 28th, 2023.
Staff received an appeal on July 6th, 2023 by Mr.
Steve Elster due to visibility concerns from Teak Court onto Sugar Berry Lane.
As you can see here, the aerial view, this is the highlighted property.
I don't know if you can see the pointer.
What are those pieces?
This is the highlighted property right here.
it's zoned residential 8.5.
You can see T Court is right here
and Sugarberry Lane is adjacent to it on this side.
This is the approved site plan that was approved
by the zoning administrator on the June 28th hearing.
As you can see, the shaded area up here
is the site distance triangle
that was approved by the city's traffic engineer.
And the bold outline on the site plan
is the outline of the fence.
And you can see the elevation drawing at the bottom,
measuring seven feet.
The site distance triangle is there
to provide visibility for the public.
Excuse me.
The response to the appeal by staff
is that the site distance triangle
for uncontrolled intersections is 40 feet in each direction.
The fence is outside the site distance triangle,
And it's measured at 51 feet from the apex
of the site distance triangle.
The fence is compatible with the neighboring fences
around the neighborhood and it does not infringe
on the openness of the surrounding area
as confirmed by the city's traffic engineer.
Excuse me, some standard language,
standard findings for the minor use permit
that the use is consistent with the general plan
and any applicable specific plan and this chapter,
that the proposed use will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety, or welfare,
and that any findings required by the land use regulations
for the zoning district within which the property
subject to the use is located.
So there is an additional finding under fences and walls
that no minor use permit for a fence shall be granted
unless a finding can be made
that the installation or construction of the fence
under the conditions of the particular case
will not infringe upon the visual openness of the surrounding properties, detract, impair,
and or destroy the characteristics of the established area.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission move to affirm the zoning administrator's
decision to approve the minor use permit Y23029.
And we are available for questions.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Appreciate that.
Commissioner, questions?
Commissioner Lezak.
I got a couple of questions for the traffic engineer.
Okay.
Ms. Madara is here in attendance.
And Mr. Victoria, while you're still there, could you switch back in your presentation
to the photo of the houses?
That one.
That's a good one.
Okay.
So, hi.
Thank you for joining us and staying for the main event here.
Site distance triangle.
Help us understand the calculation, how that's determined.
And I guess my real question is, does the site distance triangle change at different
speeds?
And what I mean is, if so, what speed would one calculate the site distance triangle that
you've shown in the report versus what other speeds might folks in the neighborhood be
driving?
we're driving, let's say, faster commonly, would that potentially impact the site distance
triangle?
Sure.
I'll submit our board man, traffic engineer.
So the site distance triangle that's applied under the circumstances for uncontrolled intersections
and what that means is that the approach itself, that side street, there's no stop sign there.
So there's, what you do is you're supposed to be yielding to the major street and that's,
you know, rules the road.
So in this circumstance we have in our municipal code it's specified as 40 feet, 40 feet as
your two sides of the triangle and so and Giordo had pointed that out earlier and it's
also on one of the plans in the in this presentation.
So as it relates to speed that's that is a different type of calculation that's for stopping
site distance and so this is though just so you know the posted speed limit on
these two streets is 25 miles per hour. Teak is a very small cul-de-sac or very
short cul-de-sac that serves just a few houses and Sugar Berry is also it's it
does provide access to several different residential to several different single
family residential but it's not like a high volume street by any means so this
is 25 miles per hour that is based on the type of street that it is and you
know we are very generally speaking and the city did adopt like a policy
recently the City Council adopted a policy related to vision zero and
focusing on bringing speeds down in a safe manner this is a very typical
residential street and so there is you know whether it is post whether it's
supposed to be what people are actually driving at is sort of a an interesting
point but in this circumstance like we do know what the prevailing speeds are
in in these locations generally about how how much we did an analysis about
about which streets did see higher speeds
over what is posted, or in this case,
it's not necessarily posted, but it is 25 miles per hour.
And so it's 25 miles per hour.
People are generally going 25 miles per hour here,
and so you can apply that 40 by 40 triangle.
Okay, because I was leading,
the leading question of course is,
do you feel like that this is a safe site distant triangle
for this specific house in a specific location,
based on, and you know, where I was leading was
if people are driving faster than that, would you need,
is it possible that it would need to be safer?
You'd need more sight distance from a safety perspective,
but overall, what's your opinion
that this is the appropriate sight triangle
and that this is safe?
So this is an appropriate sight triangle
to apply to this location.
Yeah, this, that is the 25 mile per hour assumption
is fair for this location.
So then my next question,
and this will just be my last question,
is if I look at this picture here,
there's a tree that's,
and I don't see the tree plotted in the aerial exhibit,
but it appears that the base of the tree,
the trunk, is outside of the site distance triangle,
But the branches may extend into the site distance triangle.
How does, from a safety perspective,
how does the traffic department,
how does the city interpret those branches
and whether they are affecting the site distance?
Sure, so we actually have a site distance program
that's specified in the municipal code
and on an annual basis, traffic engineering does audit
every corner for all the intersections in the city,
for any side street stop controlled intersections
where these uncontrolled approaches.
So we audit them and the branches are supposed to be trimmed
such that or any foliage is supposed to be trimmed
such that it is clear between three feet
above the grade of the pavement to seven, eight feet,
eight feet where the bottom of the canopy touches
and maybe seven feet.
but that would provide that clear line of sight.
So that is something that we do request
from the property owners,
or actually we do send a strongly worded letter
that they are supposed to be meeting the municipal code.
So if they don't,
then we can get code enforcement involved
and so on and so forth.
So nobody has probably measured this tree branch
as part of this analysis,
but it'd be my understanding from what you're telling me
that this tree is outside of the site distance,
It wasn't a concern to staff when they reviewed
this application, and if the tree branch were to be
within that area sometime in the future,
the code enforcement or traffic engineering
would identify that and work with the owner
to have that trimmed so that it would stay out.
That's right.
Okay, thank you very much.
Sure.
Do we have any other questions from commissioners?
Okay, seeing none, I would like to now open
public hearing so the appellant will have 15 minutes for the presentation.
Thank you.
The only additional detail I would add to the written comments, I stand by my concerns,
the only detail I would add to my written comments is while the speed limit on Sugarberry
is 25 miles per hour, it is a long and a fairly long interrupted stretch and you drive in
In the neighborhood you will frequently see signs that residents have put up urging drivers
to slow down.
It's definitely the case that not everybody is driving 25 miles per hour on Sugarberry,
which I don't know what that does to the vision triangle calculations.
The only other comment I have to make is that I wanted to say to Mr. Lee that I am glad
I'm glad that you've joined us in the neighborhood.
That's, those are my comments.
Great, thank you.
Do we have any commissioner questions of the appellant?
No, okay.
Thank you.
So now I guess the original applicant gets their time.
So now it's the time for, thank you.
Okay.
Good evening.
My name's Chris Chen.
I'm the owner of the property.
Tran Lee is my spouse, but she couldn't make it today.
So thank you guys for taking the time to hear this case.
Hopefully, it won't take as long as the last one.
But I think that the concern was about the sight distance
triangle and the visibility coming onto the street.
Certainly, before there was a fence there,
it certainly is less open than it was before.
But it does meet the sight distance triangle requirements.
And we did confer with the city before constructing the fence.
And afterwards, there is a slight miscommunication
about the height of the fence, which is ultimately
a minor use permit was about.
But ultimately I do think that,
and based on our letters of support as well,
that it's a, you know, driving out of the neighborhood,
you slow down, you look around the intersection,
you pull out and it's pretty easy to see around.
It's very much in line with the fences
and with the rest of the neighborhoods.
I don't think this fence is particularly outside
the character of the neighborhood.
Otherwise, I don't have a whole lot to add.
I want to thank everyone for their time hearing this matter,
especially with the traffic engineer coming out again
to reevaluate the fence, thanks.
Great, thank you very much.
Do we have any commissioner questions for the applicant?
Okay, seeing none.
Now is the time for any member of the public
who would wish to provide public comments.
Come on down.
You have this yellow card please.
I don't often do this, so.
My name's Kim Dromlevich.
I live directly across this corner and facing 689, I'm at 690 Teak Court and I just wanted
to say, I have some notes I want to keep this fast, I was one of the emails so the details
are in there. My wife and I both back out onto the street and we pull forward the way
anyone else on Teak Court would to go onto Sugarberry and because of what's been happening
I made a point of looking as I pulled up without passing the intersection line.
You can see to the end of Sugar Berry.
As the triangle shows, there's even more clearance than there is on the triangle.
I think the fence improves the look of the property.
I've seen it before and after.
And the last was sort of tongue in cheek.
I used to teach traffic skills as a side job.
I'm also an engineer, retired.
I used to teach traffic skills on motorcycle and car
years in the 90s.
So I was going to offer anyone who
has a problem pulling out into that street, Sugarberry.
I'll give them a free lesson.
I mean, it's tongue-in-cheek.
But anyway, I want to keep it short,
but it's a safe intersection.
And I agree with Steve.
The traffic on Sugarberry occasionally
going way too fast but that's again that's a separate issue but it does go
kind of fast sometimes but not that many thank you for your time thank you very
much for sharing your experience with us we appreciate that as to your offer of
free driving lessons obviously you didn't meet any of my children when they
turned 16 but probably could have used your help at that point but fortunately
we're past that now so okay are there any other members of the public either in
the chambers or on Zoom who would like to make a comment at this time.
Chair Ward I do not see any raised hands on Zoom.
Okay excellent all right so now I'd like to ask the appellant if they would like to
respond to the public comments that they were made. Okay thank you and I guess the
applicant would also have an opportunity for an additional comment if necessary
All right, seeing none.
All right, so at this time, I would like to close
the public hearing and bring this back to the commission
for any comments, questions or deliberation.
Or possibly a motion.
What do you think?
Do we need another recess?
Only 40 minutes this time.
I opened my mouth.
I'll go ahead and make the motion.
Thank you.
Motion to approve the resolution
for the appeal of the zoning administration decision
for the Lee 7-foot tall fence and street side yard setback minor use permit
application number Y 23-029 689 T court.
We have a motion and a second. Can you please record the vote? Yes I will call
the roll. Commissioner Reiser. Yes. Commissioner Neeting. Yes. Commissioner
was act yes Commissioner Anderson yes Commissioner strongman yes chair Ward
yes okay the motion passes thank you very much everyone for coming in and
participating we appreciate it and Andy's coming back okay so at this time
I'd like to move on to agenda item five which is Commission considerations Andy
Do we have any considerations to consider?
No, we do not.
Okay.
All right, so that moves us on to item number six,
commission member and staff reports or announcements.
Andy, start with you.
Do you have any announcements for us?
I was actually gonna reach out
to your most recent past chair,
even Mindernagel, for his advice on this
since I don't remember what he said,
but when he was in a similar situation,
but as I previously let you know,
I have accepted an opportunity elsewhere
and with a heavy heart will be leaving the city
of Walnut Creek after almost 18 years,
including actually two stints with this commission
once as about as an interim for about six months
while in between other folks.
And of course for the past several years,
or I think several years is the real deal here.
And it's been my honor to serve you,
been my honor to serve the city council
and past and present,
and most importantly,
the citizens of Walnut Creek over this time.
And I thank everybody for all of the opportunities
that that has afforded me.
And just on a personal note,
it's been a pleasure to work with every one of you.
And I wanna personally thank you
for volunteering all of your time,
including a bunch of recesses tonight.
that was a little longer than usual.
But I don't think the public always realizes
this for all volunteers and you really just,
you're doing this for your community.
It's selfless civic engagement and participation
and I certainly recognize that and want to say thank you.
Well, I really appreciate that
and I wanted to say a few words to thank you as well.
As you know, I am Vice Chair strongman.
We worked with you also in the Transportation Commission.
So you're a man of many hats for the city.
As we just saw, it took three of us
to just make this thing run without you.
And I have so appreciated your dedication,
your enthusiasm, your excellent knowledge
that you've been so willing to share with us,
and your just undying support of us,
regardless of what commission we're serving on
at any given moment.
I also have taken particular joy
in just watching your kind of almost nerdy zeal
for like some of the intricacies of planning
and just carrying out our jobs as commissioners
and likewise.
And I think that possibly the very height of that
was when you actually basically arranged a book club
for the Transportation Commission at one point
where we all read a book about transportation.
And then we sat around and we, there was no wine,
unfortunately it was not that.
But just the enthusiasm and the joy of learning more
about the subject that we were doing
and the way that you guided us in sharing knowledge
and helping us do our jobs better was just so appreciated.
And I just thought, who else would think of having a transportation club, book club?
I just, and who better to participate in that than the people who like me are just complete
policy walks when it comes to parking and other things that are actually really important
to the pity, the people of Walnut Creek.
And so I appreciate that because I think a lot of times we get only criticism or just
disbelief as to why we're interested in what we're doing and what were and the importance of it and
You always made me feel like what I was doing was valuable
To the city and something that was important and that you were always there to
Support us when what we needed to do and I just can't thank you enough for that
I really really appreciate it
I did get you a little gift, but is there anybody else while i'm getting this who wants to chime in here?
I just wanted to say that as part of the majority of this group who has actually never served
on this commission without you there to guide us, I'm appalled that you would just leave
us in the lurch like this, but we did manage to dispense with one item at least without
you here, although it did take significant team effort, something we probably shouldn't
try to repeat again, but it has been a pleasure.
I've worked with a lot of staff members on various commissions and councils
and what have you and so many good ones and you are certainly one of those.
Appreciate your help.
All right. OK, Commissioner Lezak.
I'm just going to quickly add that for those of you who are watching at home
who who thought that this young man with a bow tie was really just kind of strange.
He is an incredibly cool guy and it may be hard to tell that sometimes but I have really greatly
appreciated becoming your friend and can't wait to continue that. So thank you very much for serving
with us, Andy. Commissioner Needing. I'm the new kid but I have to say that I hope that you continue
with this amazing just the bright clothes it always kind of I don't know
I love it because I think us nerds like you need to stand out and so that bright
beautiful clothing you're gonna spazz up and fashion up wherever it is that you
go so we'll miss you it's definitely Walnut Creek's loss and our loss and
Walnut and your new employers gain so as I mentioned earlier to your patience and
professionalism and what you've shown me in your guidance
over the years on this commission event.
Very much appreciate it.
So best of luck to you and we hope to continue
our friendship as well.
And I will go ditto to all of that.
Well, thank you very much.
I'm deeply humbled and thank you.
Yeah, well the pleasure has truly been ours.
And as when you told me on the phone that you know
that how that came out of like no you can't oh I mean I mean good luck and
congratulations um and we really do wish you the very very best thank you very
much thank you any other announcement anything all right with that I will
adjourn it's 740 and we're going to adjourn thank you everybody for all your
That's pretty terrible.
If Commissioner Pickett had been here tonight,
he always loves the bow ties.
And unfortunately, I no longer can
seem to fit into my most brightly colored shirts.
At least I did get a Jerry Garcia tie for tonight,
or a World War I.