Good evening everyone and welcome to the Tuesday October 3rd, 2023 meeting of the Walnut Creek
City Council. I'm Cindy Silva. I have the honor of serving as mayor this year and I want to welcome
you. Tonight's meeting is being conducted in the City Council chambers in Walnut Creek with an
audience and welcome to all of you who are here with us as well as staff. We also have some
attendees who are participating virtually. We are conducting our meeting under the rules established
by the state of California. Currently all five council members are here this evening so we do
not have any council member who's participating in the meeting remotely due to an emergency.
So we will start by asking you all to rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands
one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Would the city clerk please
take the roll councilmember darling here councilmember françois here councilmember wilk here mayor
pro tem husk here mayor silva here we have two presentations to start the meeting this evening
the first will be delivered remotely by representatives of walnut creek downtown
Kathy Hemingway. And so she's going to report on Arts Around August.
Good evening. I'm Kathy Hemingway, Walnut Creek Downtown Association, the Executive Director.
And I'm here tonight to provide an overview of the Arts Around August program, which occurred
this past August, and along with the event coordinator, Chelsea Navolio. Arts Around August
was a collaborative effort with 14 community stakeholders and the City of Walnut Creek
showcasing the performing visual and culinary arts within the downtown, excuse me, within
the downtown district. I'd like to introduce Chelsea Nevolio now who will provide the recap
report on behalf of the Walnut Creek, Walnut Creek Arts Alliance. I'm going to ask...
Kathy, I'm not seeing Chelsea. Okay, all right, then I will have to step in here. Okay, so next
slide please. So the Arts Alliance program, or excuse me, the Arts Alliance was able to produce
the third annual Arts Around August program. The objective was to be able to, as I mentioned,
showcase the downtown shopping, dining and arts activities. The 14 organizations and
partners work together to help along with the downtown businesses. Our media partners for
Diablo Magazine and the Walnut Creek Magazine. And our marketing plan included print and digital
advertising, editorial content, banners and social media, which we'll share a couple examples.
Next slide please. So the month itself included 12 events for a variety of ages with three
ongoing programs which included the, see that would have included the pianos, the painted pianos,
and then also the stages that we have downtown, and then the public art walk walking tour.
Next slide please. This is a list of our partners. There is a wide variety of our
community partners that produce events in August and then also on top of their regular seasons
provided programming that was available for the public to enjoy through just the month of August.
Next slide. This is a snapshot of our budget. The park banners were the advertising that we had
installed at Heather Farms and also Civic Park. And then you'll see at the bottom the additional
banners, the lamppost banners. Those were the banners that were able to advertise the market,
the event itself throughout the downtown and we had approximately 15 to 20 sponsors
that provided sponsorship support for those banners. Next slide please. And this is a budget
where you'll see the marketing expenses, our program coordinator, which I see Chelsea has
just joined us. And then the income that we were able to realize for the program
included financial support from the city of Walnut Creek of $13,000, the banner, and then
the program app, which generated about $4,500. And then we had a rollover of proceeds from
the 2022 event. So our net total was $6,336. I might turn it over to Chelsea from here to
see if you have any additional comments and then feel free to take it over. Awesome, thanks Kathy.
Hi everybody. Good evening and we can jump to the next slide. So just a quick overview on some of
the marketing efforts that we did this year. We partnered with Diablo Magazine, Walnut Creek
Magazine, Your Town really to just drive different types of digital ads and print ads just around
on social media as well just to get the word out for arts around August. We also had Walnut Creek
Downtown posting on our social media. We also were able to engage with Northgate Living Magazine
and Danville magazine, and then also with Bardible as well. We can go to the next slide.
And then you can see kind of just a quick overview of our social media reports. We did have
a lot of different posts and impressions and engagements, which was great,
seeing a lot of people interacting with the posts, and then also created some posters and
postcards that we were able to disperse around different downtown businesses for people to see
as well. And then, as you saw in the budget, we did do those banners as well, downtown.
We had a total of 17 sponsored banners. And out of those 17, nine partners kind of took
over that total amount. Can go to the next slide. So just to go over some of the highlights
of the program. So across all the different events we did, there definitely was a good
mix of diversity of attendees who engage, so some events where we thought maybe only
families would come or vice versa, we definitely saw a lot of different age groups, a lot of
different types of people coming, which was awesome, really showed that word was getting
around and that people wanted to come to all different kinds of events. Our first Wednesday
Street Fest had over 3,000 people attend, which is a huge success to see that many people
coming out for that event. Same kind of numbers for the Broadway Plaza Summer Concert Series
and then the Family Day at the Lesher Center and then two kind of other big wins for some of the
smaller partners. California Symphony felt they got a lot of exposure and engagement to the
community so they're really excited to kind of make a splash this year getting out there and then
Valley Art giveaway. They were really excited that they generated 16 net new kind of leads or people
to engage with their business after this program. And then next slide please. So some of the
challenges that we did see definitely probably was a little different than some of the years
past but we did have a significantly lower amount of events this year. So last year our partners
generated about 28 events. This year we only had 12. One thing that was noted just around the
community was school kind of starting earlier in August became a little bit more challenging.
Families are kind of just starting school. It was difficult for them to attend all the different
programs and events being able to kind of get out of the house once the chaos of school has started.
Also just the timing of being in August felt a little difficult for some of the community
partners, some of the producers that they rely on to execute some of their events.
Typically don't work this time of year or not available so that did lead to some challenges
getting kind of the events up and running for some partners. A couple specific events just to
note, movable fees, we did see a dip in attendees. Unfortunately, we did have to cancel one of the
Wednesdays that we were hosting that because there weren't enough tickets sold.
And then there was also a lot less restaurant participation. So some restaurants kind of
doubled up and did multiple days where ideally we would have different restaurants each week
that we were highlighting. For Robin Hood, it was one of our shows that we
was produced by one of the partners. They barely broke even on some of the expenses versus
selling tickets to get people to come with a lot of smaller audiences. They probably could have
only done one performance versus the two. And then the last thing was just not many people
utilized the passport that was offered, which was kind of an additional thing that was offered
this year. So we can go to the next slide. So lastly just some considerations. One big thing that
although community partners have been discussing was just kind of the timing of arts around August
and if it's something that should continue staying in August or if it could be more successful
being a program that's highlighted throughout the entire year where different partners can
kind of focus on the different seasons that they feel more successful in or different times of
years where they can kind of showcase some of their other programs or events that they know to
be successful during that time of year. And that kind of ties along too to the second point which
is just having more the timeline being more inclusive and that is able to really drive
stronger engagement in the community, giving people a longer lead time to engage or knowing
that certain months of the year they're going to be going to certain shows or certain types of
events. And then lastly, always budget, increase budget to help organizations with their programming
costs or additional sponsorship or grants is always going to be a benefit just to help them
kind of boost more engagement or have some different ideas or fun things that they can do
with their events. So that is our Arts Around August summary recap and I'll pass it back to
Kathy unless there's questions. Yes happy to entertain any questions. Thank you very much
for the presentation. I'll turn to council for any questions. I know it was a lot of work to
put this together for a one month time frame and I know those who participated in it truly enjoyed
the various activities so thank you for everything that you did and we look forward to seeing how
the conversations progress over the coming months as to what the future might hold. Thank you very
much. Thank you for your support. Thank you. The next presentation is from Kate Hartley who's
with the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority. Good evening. Thank you. Good evening council members.
Again, Kate Hartley, I'm the director of the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority and I'm
really pleased to be with you tonight.
Is this on?
No.
It doesn't feel, it doesn't.
Can't hear it.
Let's check.
Test, am I, do I need to be closer?
Oh, I need to be closer.
Okay, sorry about that.
There you go.
Take two and I'll lean in.
Thank you for having me.
Kate Hartley, I'm the director of the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority and I'm really
happy to be here to provide information to you about BAFA as we call ourselves
and the regional housing bond that we've proposed for 2024. Let me get my
slides. You as policymakers understand the issues that we are addressing. First of
all, homelessness, every single city in the region is struggling with
homelessness, but it's not just homelessness. We have not built enough
of housing for our communities for a very long time.
And so every community in the Bay Area
is also struggling to provide the affordable housing
that essential workers need,
like healthcare workers and daycare workers
and our teachers.
We are now looking at 180,000 unit RINA obligation
between 2023 and 2031 that is the projection
for providing the affordable housing
that all our communities need.
And in order to meet that kind of demand,
we need new financing.
And this is something that voters have told us
over and over again in the last few years,
they care about the most consistently.
Polling has shown that voters' main concerns
are homelessness and housing unaffordability.
And Contra Costa County has a really great start.
There's 25 projects in pre-development right now
that have some form of approval
but haven't secured their financing yet.
They are already working in our communities.
They need resources to move forward.
It would be 2,700 units, new homes
for our community members.
And it's not everything we need, of course,
but it would be a great start.
And we know that Walnut Creek has shown
an excellent commitment to affordable housing,
to addressing homelessness.
I've been working with your housing staff
and it's been a pleasure.
So we're really excited to continue that collaboration.
And BAFA was created just exactly to do that.
We were formed in 2019 through state legislation.
Our main power is to generate revenue for the region.
And we are pursuing a 10 to $20 billion bond
for the November 2024 ballot.
80% of funds raised would go back
to the counties of origin.
BAFA would retain 20% of those funds
so that we can advance new systems
that actually would create resources
that would continue on after all the bond funds themselves
have been spent.
And we are governed by a wide variety
of elected officials from across the Bay Area.
And thank you to Mayor Silva and to everyone else
who has served on the ABAG Executive Board
and the MTC Commission.
the same membership as the BAFA board.
And BAFA truly would be something new by creating a regional lender who can step in and make
construction loans and permanent loans right now where the banks are playing that role.
And we have great partnerships with the banks.
They are a really important part of affordable housing development, but they take the interest
in fees they earn and they give them back to their shareholders, BAFA as a regional
finance entity can come in, take a portion of that work, and instead of distributing
money outside of our communities, reinvest those proceeds back into projects and for
activities like tenant protections.
It would truly be a new system, a game changer for us, and create new resources that would
not require ongoing taxpayer support.
We also have the opportunity to have regional advocacy in a way that does not now exist
and also to create regional programs.
So one example I'll give you, we have commenced a study in courthouses all around the nine
counties to collect eviction data to understand better why, where, how people are getting
evicted because without that data we can't craft anti-eviction programs as successfully
as we otherwise would.
And this is data in the aggregate that just doesn't exist right now.
We are really, I found, I've been looking through your housing documents and really
loved the overlap between the principles and policies that Walnut Creek has espoused for
for housing development and affordable housing
and what Baja is trying to do.
Create economic vitality, address climate change
by producing transit-oriented development,
which Walnut Creek has done,
and to maintain diversity and healthy communities
in the Bay Area.
So we've been pretty busy since 2019.
Actually, we just operationalized in 2022.
Our launch was delayed because of the pandemic.
And our website has a lot of really great information.
I do urge anyone who's interested to go
and we have FAQs and program documents.
I'll just let you know about one of our activities
in particular and that's the doorway housing portal.
We are creating an online application portal
for the entire Bay Area so that people now
who are looking for affordable housing,
Building by building and waiting list by waiting list
can go to one place, one centralized location,
look for an opportunity and actually apply
on their smartphones or on their laptop.
We'll have full application capacity
in the first quarter of 2024.
Listings are there now, so we're really excited
about that endeavor as well as others.
But the bond is really the main focus of our work
and the main focus that I wanna tell you about tonight.
And there's recently been state legislation passed
that changes the landscape for what we need to do
in order to provide these new resources.
Assembly constitutional amendment one just passed, ACA one,
that lowers the voter threshold
for affordable housing bonds and public infrastructure
from two thirds to 55%.
And that will mean it is a much smoother process
to deliver what voters have told us consistently,
they want us to address.
There are probably gonna be amendments to ACA 1
before it's actually placed before the voters.
So there might be some additional changes
that would also allow us to more easily address homelessness.
And so we'll stay tuned for that.
but that 55% threshold, which, as you know,
school bonds now must achieve,
that really does change the landscape of this possibility.
And just to talk a little bit
about how the bonds have to be spent,
our enabling legislation has rules
for both the county expenditures
as well as Boffa's expenditures.
They're pretty straightforward.
Most of the money has to be spent for new homes.
And there's also a set aside for preservation.
And that is to do things like convert existing market rate
buildings to permanently affordable housing,
to make sure that a building that
has an existing affordable restriction
but that it's expiring.
And in those cases, it can be the case
that tenants have to leave overnight
because rents go from a restricted level
to market rate.
we can help developers or owners
extend those affordability restrictions
and also to help existing developments
maintain safe and decent housing
by implementing rehab programs in those buildings.
And then there's flexible funds for the county.
28% of the funds can be used
for production or preservation
but also for flexible uses
like a housing-related park or infrastructure.
The protection piece that you see,
5% of the funds is dependent on whether ACA1 has a slightly
expanded use that is eligible for bond expenditures.
Right now, the California Constitution
limits bond funding to be spent on the acquisition or improvement
of real property only.
BAFA has similar rules, except our flexible funds
are limited to 18%, because we have 10% of our funds
going to a local government incentive grant program,
and we're taking input from our board members
about just exactly how that should be created.
And this really shows the power of this bond.
925 million for Contra Costa County on a $10 billion bond.
Double that for a $20 billion bond.
But as you can see, for the first time ever,
Every community, every county in our region
would have an unprecedented level of funding
and we'd be working on this together.
You'll see there are some cities
that have a direct allocation that's in the legislation.
The three big cities get their own allocation
as well as any city that carries more than 30%
of their counties' very low-income
regional housing obligation.
And this is just the breakdown of the funds that would go to Contra Costa
County, numerically shown from that pie chart that I just went through. A few
more of the rules that will apply for Contra Costa County's expenditure. Again,
it's pretty flexible. The funds can be devoted to rental or ownership.
Affordability is capped at 120% AMI. For new construction projects, the counties
and cities must prioritize investments in developments that meet extremely low income,
very low income and low income RENA obligations.
And then again, the flexible funds are for housing or housing related uses.
So we are out and talking to people and putting information out there and doing public workshops
and things like that.
We are, before our governing boards a lot this fall,
those are public hearings and everyone is invited,
we welcome input.
And then by the first quarter of 2024,
we hope to advance the ballot measure language
and our expenditure plan
and all the documentation necessary to move forward
through June to the final approvals
and to put this measure on the ballot
November of 2024. And a couple other things, we are conducting polling right
now so that we can see in real time where we are and how voters are feeling
about us and the likelihood of success. So that will inform the value of the
bond and our actions moving forward. And that's it, I'm happy to answer any
questions. Thank you very much. Questions from Council. I'm sure we have some. Councilmember
Darling. Thank you for coming and great presentation. It is something that every
time we talk to our voters, housing affordability and homelessness really do come to the top.
Is the thought that the money would go to the counties and the counties would work with the
the city's in partnership?
Is there a requirement for that partnership?
Yes, there is a requirement.
We had to do a little bit of cleanup legislation
and because we wanted to make it crystal clear
that the counties must work explicitly, closely,
effectively with all the cities in their region,
we put that in the legislation.
So when Contra Costa County creates its own expenditure plan
for its 80% of the money,
It must demonstrate that it has reached out
to every single city in Contra Costa,
and it won't be approved
if that is not very clearly demonstrated.
Okay, and then would the expenditure plan allow things,
you know, we've heard of different programs
like the Casita program
where it's actually not an affordable housing developer,
but it's a homeowner putting an ADU in
to help them stay in their house
and create affordable housing.
Does it allow those kind of more flexible solutions?
Yes, the overarching rules that will apply,
and we want counties and cities
to be as creative as possible within that framework,
are that for the county's funds,
it needs to be deed restricted.
Investments have to be deed restricted,
but there's not a set term on the deed restriction.
So that allows some flexibility,
Like, for example, you could have a declining balance
mortgage.
You have a 10-year term, a 10-year regulatory restriction.
And every year an owner stays in the property,
a low-income owner stays in the property,
you reduce that obligation by a tenth.
That's just one idea.
And the uses have to be constitutional.
So providing services, for example, right now
would not be a constitutional use of funds, 120% AMI cap.
So for an ADU, a backyard ADU, that's
definitely an eligible constitutional use.
It's new construction.
And then the question is just, what
would be the best way to provide a deed restriction,
and how are you serving, making sure that that 120% cap is
fulfilled?
And then one of the challenge of addressing
these kinds of problems with bonds,
you've talked about this, is the long-term operations
have to get funded through another mechanism.
Have you guys wrestled with that?
For permanent supportive housing
and extremely low-income housing, absolutely.
That is a huge, it's a huge problem.
It's one of the reasons it's so hard to build enough housing
for our unhoused populations in our communities.
So we're looking at every single angle.
That's why potential amendments to ACA-1
are really important to track.
So for example, some developers, some building owners,
capitalize upfront an operating reserve that's quite large,
much larger than a traditional market rate development
would have, and in that way you can ensure
that you can charge very low rents
and still cover your operating expenses.
It's not the best, most efficient use of funds,
but it may be, if that's all we have,
We will definitely be looking at that.
We want to combine our capital investments
with housing choice vouchers, if and when they're available.
And we've also been talking to housing authorities
across the region about looking at disbursement of housing
choice vouchers a little differently.
Right now, a housing choice voucher
often supports both the operating
expenses of a building and a bank loan.
Well, we could substitute out some of that bank loan,
get a lower voucher payment standard.
We could substitute out the bank loan with bond funds.
And then the Housing Authority could
spread those voucher resources farther to other projects.
So we also want to combine our capital investments
with money from the state, federal government,
their shelter plus care.
So we're looking at everything we
can to make these funds as effective as possible for addressing homelessness.
Thank you. Councilmember Francois, do you have any questions? I have a few remaining
after those excellent questions from Councilmember Darling. First of all, thank
you for being here. Thank you for the important work you're doing in our
community and throughout the jurisdictions. I'm curious, would any type
of affordable housing be eligible for these bond funds? Missing, middle, moderate
income housing? We do want to build missing middle housing but we're back to
those restrictions that are in our enabling legislation. Both the counties
and well the counties could invest in housing up to 120% of area median income.
BAFA actually has more strict restrictions on what we can do. Our area
median income affordability limit is 80%, but we're still looking at that.
And then I would just caveat that a little bit, and that is for the new production money,
the first prioritization has to be, according to the legislation, this extremely low, very
low in low income developments that are in your arena, but there's still money left over
after that prioritization is done for missing middle housing as well as your flexible funds
can be used for missing middle housing so we're hoping that all of the counties and
BAFA are able to provide a broad range of housing types because we know we need it all.
You mentioned you're doing some polling work and I imagine that has to do with the amount
of a potential bond and then how the bond funds would be used.
And I'm wondering, is one of the questions you're,
one of the things that jumped out at me in looking
at the pie chart on the 80 percent side, was it,
it seemed like maybe it was 50 or 60 percent would go
for actual production.
Is that, that an issue that you're asking voters about?
If more of those funds went towards production,
would you be more likely to support it?
I don't know if the pollsters are going to ask that exact question, but they're going
to ask a range of questions, like, what's most important to you?
We know that in prior polling, people really want to see housing for families, for example,
and housing for seniors, and veterans, and homeless households.
So what the core concerns, what do people care about most?
That's what we're looking at.
One thing to keep in mind, though,
is that the minimum for new homes is 52% of the money.
But Contra Costa County and all the counties
could decide to devote all of their flexible funds, 28%,
to production.
And that is a very legitimate, worthy goal.
So you'd be at 80% of your funds.
And in fact, Bofa staff have recommended
the first bond issuance.
And we'll be breaking up the bond into multiple issuances.
That we will have our 52% for production,
but all our flexible funds.
And for us, it's only 18%.
We're recommending to our boards
that all 18% go to production
because of the housing shortage.
Thank you very much.
Mayor Pro Tem.
So a lot of people who are unhoused really need to,
in addition to having housing, they need help finding jobs
and they need help with services.
Is there any, is this outside of what the funding
could be used for?
Yes, because of the constitutional prohibitions,
but we really believe that this bond will free up
jurisdictions quite significantly by bringing so much more
money into the capital production that so in some cases a lot of jurisdictions might
use CDBG funds for example on services any fund or general fund for that matter any funds
currently that are going to capital costs can be replaced freeing them up for the services
that are necessary for many unhoused residents to have stabilized occupancy so we think this
This is very additive, but we will not be able to serve those non-bricks and mortar
expenses because of the Constitution.
How about furniture?
No fixtures.
It's not capital.
Bricks and mortar only.
I know.
It's very strict.
I mean, we could amend the Constitution to take care of that, but yeah, that's the Prop
13 restrictions.
member will do you have any questions I have a couple and it might require
bringing back one of the slides sure Bay Area Housing Finance Authority is the
jurisdiction basically the same as a bag and MTC the nine counties and 101
cities exactly and thank you that's perfect so tell me how the funds are
being allocated is it by population by county it's not by population it's by
assessed property value. So what Contra Costa County taxpayers put in their
share that they get a commensurate amount back. Because these bonds will be
secured with debt financing based on property tax. That's right. So now you
look at I see Santa Rosa and the city of Napa. So those are obviously the larger
cities in the counties of Sonoma and Napa. Does that mean Napa County and Sonoma County
are getting more than their share, or it's just it's directly being allocated to the
two cities?
It's a direct allocation. And the reason Santa Rosa and the city of Napa are getting direct
allocations is because they carry more than 30 percent of their very low-income RINA obligation
in their counties.
I think those were my questions, thank you.
When will you be looking to make a decision on how, give us a sense of the timing again?
Yes, I'll go down to that slide.
So we're polling now, we're talking to our board about how, you know, we BAFA want to
spend our 20%.
is all happening through December, and then our attorneys are drafting the ballot language.
We're working with all the counties, registrars of voters, and county council to bring us
all together, and our first, we have a nine-member advisory committee that's comprised of industry
professionals in production, preservation, and protections.
Our first stop with those draft documents, the ballot language, the expenditure plan,
et cetera, the resolution to pass the bond will be January 24th, I believe, in 2024.
And then the next step is our oversight committee.
And then the next step is the ABAG executive committee, then the BAFA board.
And that's going to happen between January and June.
And then we go to the counties if we succeed.
succeed so the nine counties each have to agree to put it on their respective
county ballots that no it's not discretionary if the ABAG executive
board and the BAPA board vote to pass the resolution then the counties will
hold a hearing to call the special elect to call the election but it's not
discretionary which is why the representation on the BAPA board and the
ABAG Executive Board and throughout the jurisdiction,
throughout the region is important.
So those meetings at the ABAG Executive Board
and BAFA Board will be important
and they will determine whether we have a ballot measure
or not and one thing to note too is that the success
of the measure is a function of the aggregate voting.
So if one county doesn't reach 55% assuming
that ACA1 passes, but another county is at 80%
and overall we get to 55% plus one,
then the measure passes for all nine counties.
And ACA1, whatever its eventual number is slated
to be on the same ballot.
That's right.
Any final questions from my colleagues?
Thank you so much, I know this is great work
and it's truly supported by so many across the region
because it is a big need.
It's a drop in the bucket.
It's such a big need, but thank you.
Thank you so much for having me.
And thank you for all the great housing work
that Walnut Creek has done.
Oh, and we're doing more tonight.
I'm glad to hear it.
Thank you very much.
The next item on the agenda is public communications.
This is for public communications
for items that are not on our agenda this evening.
And so if you're here to speak to us about our discussion
on the adoption of a permanent ordinance related to Senate Bill 9. This is not your time. If you're
here to speak to us on any of the six items that are on our consent calendar, this is not your time.
So this portion of the meeting is reserved for again items that are not on the agenda. Under the
Brown Act, the council cannot act on items that are raised during public communication but we may
respond briefly we may ask a question or we may refer you to staff. We under our
rules for the council which are listed in our handbook we allow 30 minutes at
the beginning of the meeting which would start in probably 30 seconds at this
time and then we continue public communication of this sort at the end of
the meeting if necessary after our regular business. Each person will be
given up to two minutes to speak to us and we will start with people here in
the council chambers. We will toggle at a certain point to those who are joining
us virtually. We may come back, we'll probably come back to those in the
council chambers. We'll just change it up a little bit as we move along. So I'm
going to call three of you at a time and we will start tonight in the room with
Mark Orcutt, then Pete Bennett and then Molly Klopp. And we will take public
communication until 713. Good evening Mayor Silva and City Council my name is
Mark Orcutt I am the president and CEO of the East Bay Leadership Council and
the executive director of the Contra Costa Economic Partnership. Those are
two nonprofit organizations focused on a very similar goal strengthening our
economy and improving quality of life across Alameda and Contra Costa County.
We advance that mission in a variety of ways I won't go get into all of those
activities with my two minutes tonight. We wanted to highlight a few of the
things we have going on at the organization. First off, the Contra Costa
Economic Partnership, along with our friends at the Diablo Valley Tech
Initiative and the Walnut Creek Chamber of Commerce, we're taking a close look in
advancing conversations related to an open data pilot in Contra Costa County,
potentially even piloting in a local city. So we're kind of talking about what
that might look like, trying to learn from other cities and regions across the
country and moving that forward. We think it is certainly a promising concept
from a perspective of economic development and attracting innovative
businesses to our region. Next up, the East Bay Leadership Council runs a
candidate training program called Build the Bench. I am very excited that we
launched our fourth cohort in the last six years just this last month in
September. We cover a wide range of campaign issues, everything related to
to how you build your campaign plan,
to field organizing, digital strategy, and more.
So it's a great program.
If you want to learn more about that,
to participate in the future,
or to polish up your own campaign skills,
if you're an elected official here,
and that's buildthebench.com.
We'll run that in odd years.
Finally, we have a few events coming up
between now and the end of the year.
We have two events with members of our state legislature,
both assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Cahan on October 19th,
and a Zoom event with assembly member Lori Wilson
on November 9th.
That's not announced yet.
So you're getting breaking news there.
Just line that up today.
And finally, there's gonna be a new partnership
with Diablo Magazine and the East Bay Leadership Council
to host Threads of Hope at the Lesher Center on December 6th.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you, but I have a question for you.
Yes.
And thank you very much for speaking so quickly.
You just heard Catha Hartley or Kate Hartley
talk about the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority.
I know Bay Area Council and East Bay Leadership Council
are very concerned about housing and its impact on the,
or its lack of affordability and its impact on the economy.
Is this something you're going to be following?
We'll be following it very closely.
I was listening very closely to the presentation.
We will certainly be taking a position
on that ballot measure next year
and thinking really carefully about ACA 1 as well
as it relates to all of the different measures
It could potentially be on the ballot across the Bay Area.
Thank you.
Other questions?
Thank you very much.
Our next speaker, please.
My name is Pete Bennett.
The council knows me, Mr. Buckshi, Mr. Mathis,
chief, city attorneys.
I've stood up in front of you guys 50 or 60 times.
In the course of the 10, 15 years
that I've been speaking.
My family's been murdered.
I announced the murder of a girlfriend and daughter.
My friends have been murdered.
My customers have been murdered.
City Attorney Mark Coon jumped off
a building in the middle of an investigation
involving the murder of my witness 35 years ago.
I've gone through too much.
I have beatings, broken fingers, broken hands, head traumas.
I've almost died in the hospital from poison,
had a guy across the street at the library
almost strangle me to death.
Mr. Buckshi, the most important thing
is I've been asking for police reports, and I can't get them.
My life is going to end on the street.
I'm becoming disabled from the stroke I had last year,
from the punches to the heads that probably
contributed to that.
I'm living in your city on the street.
I have death threats coming all the time.
Every day, you're gonna die at 905 a.m.
You're gonna die at 10 a.m.
You're never gonna see your sons again.
I have a blog, I'm gonna put it up there.
It's called walnutcreekpolice.com.
I've been run over.
I don't expect to get any housing.
You have a housing program here
and they threaten me with arrest when I came for food,
when I was starving one day.
Don't go here, Pete.
Don't go there.
Thank you.
Next speaker, please.
Mayor Silva, esteemed council members, city staff,
community members, I'm Molly Falclop.
I'm a Walnut Creek resident
and a St. Paul's Episcopal Church parishioner
and the board chair of Trinity Center.
I send regards from Reverend Christopher Gossa
who could not be here this evening,
but we wanna share news with you
about the blessing of the building.
So what does that mean?
You might recall way back in 2013,
a group of wide-eyed dreamers
from St. Paul's and Trinity Center,
including Reverend Sylvia Vasquez and Donna Colombo,
started to think about what the future
of the church-owned, underused lot
to the east of our sanctuary might be.
A committee was formed, which I was honored to chair
to explore and ultimately execute a plan.
We worked with our developer,
resources for community development,
our architect, city planning,
the Episcopal Diocese of California,
our parishioners and neighbors,
and all of our funders to come up with a plan
for St. Paul's Commons,
which includes 44 units of affordable housing,
a manager's apartment,
and a community center on the ground floor,
which houses Trinity Center.
We broke ground on this project on May 16, 2018,
and our first residents occupied the affordable housing apartments on December 31st, 2019.
The ground floor community space was completed April 20th. Does that date sound familiar
and ominous? Yes, the building was completed and Trinity moved in right at the start of
the pandemic. So because of the pandemic and everyone's busy schedule, we never got to
to celebrate the completion of our great
and important project.
However, the right Reverend Mark Andrus,
Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of California,
is visiting St. Paul on October 15th,
and due to his passion for and support of this project,
the timing seems perfect.
He will bless the building at about 1030
in the courtyard of the Commons.
So it's gonna be a joyous occasion,
and we thank you all for helping us
achieve this great outcome.
So we're all invited to attend.
Yes, you are.
Sunday the 15th, about 10.30.
Yeah.
Thank you very much, Molly.
Thank you.
I'm gonna take a couple of our speakers
that are joining us virtually.
Jane Emmanuelle first, and then Donna Labriola.
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes, we can.
Okay, did you hear me already?
I have to start over.
Okay, here I go.
Good evening, I was muted.
Good evening, Jane Emanuel, 624, Shadowhawk Way, Walnut Creek.
I'm chairperson of the Walnut Creek Arts Commission.
We have two new murals this fall.
Nigel Sussman of Berkeley is about to start his mural
on the Tice Valley Gym.
He's creating a stylized view of Walnut Creek,
including images of the gym and other landmarks.
People who frequent the park will be shown participating
many activities they enjoy and they mentioned this to the artist in his on-site surveys.
His blue and green palette will also include the gray of the building as a third color to best
integrate the wall with the mural. And the children's room of our downtown library is
getting a new look with local artist Net Tassvet who brings her children to the library regularly.
Her imaginative and cheerful rendition of Aesop's Fable, The Hair and the Tortoise,
is a welcome addition to our art-filled library. Fables usually end with valuable messages.
In this case, never give up and winning isn't everything. The Long Creek Arts Commission has
approved guidelines and application procedures for the new mural program that we're extending
beyond the downtown core. We invite commercial property owners and tenants to consider enlivening
their walls with original professional murals. The city will provide a matching grant from the
public art fund up to $5,000 for mural expenses. We're looking forward to seeing the exciting murals
throughout the city. And finally, the last public art walking tours of the season will take place
on Saturdays, October 21st and November 18th, both at 10 a.m. Come meet us on the Lesher Plaza.
Thank you for your continued support of the arts in Walnut Creek.
And Donna Labriola. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Hi, I'm Donna Labriola. I'm with Walnut Creek downtown
and I'm here to talk about some of the exciting things we have coming up. We are part of the
community service project that's happening on October 14th and we still have space available
for people to volunteer for the 7 30 to 9 pm shift that we have to tidy up the festival grounds
in Civic Park East after Oktoberfest ends and then we have our Walnut Creek Oktoberfest which
happens October 13th and 14th. We have lots of great stuff uh beer garden, kid zone, bark
lounge, silent disco, you name it we got it. And we'd love everybody to come down and enjoy
this free event and it is happening in civic park east and you can get more details at walnut creek
downtown dot com. And lastly we are coordinating with the city for our boobash walnut creek
which happens for the kids on Friday, October 27th.
That will take place first as a stroll through downtown
and the businesses starting in Broadway Plaza from noon to three.
And then it will wind up with the Trunk or Treat
in Civic Park from three to six.
And we invite everyone to come out with your children and enjoy.
I think we have a question before we allow you to run off.
Hi Donna, this is Cindy Darling and I was talking to the Golden Rain Foundation
earlier in the last week and we were talking about
Oktoberfest and they wanted to know what the parking situation would be.
You know they have a lot of folks coming in from Rossmoor that are a little bit
slower on foot and they were wondering how parking is going to work.
Sure. So we do, we have the parking lot there at Mechanics Bank right on Civic Drive that parking
will be $10 and there's a lot of parking there as well as we have parking, paid parking over at
of the Leisure Center as well.
Unfortunately, a lot of the back parking lot
will be taken up with our event information and people,
but then the civic park on the front side,
all of that will be open as well,
or at least most of it will be.
Okay, thank you.
Aha.
Thank you very much.
I'm gonna come back into the council chamber
for a few more.
Carlos de Rivera, Jeff Alphont,
and Bob Lindshied.
Good evening.
Good evening, city council, mayor.
I wanted to speak a little bit about housing,
so this is kind of the theme.
But you're not talking about the SB 9 bill.
I am not talking about SB 9.
Okay, good.
I'm quite sure you're in the right place.
So what I've seen is inventory being souped up
by people that have a lot of money and they sit empty.
We have several houses in our neighborhood
that I can point to that that is the case.
So families are coming to try to buy a house
when they come out for the market,
are not able to compete because a lot of money
is being brought into the city.
It happens for small houses and they sit empty, like I said,
or they get turned into Airbnb,
but also in big buildings.
I don't see the vibrancy I should expect
from all the different apartments
that are being created downtown.
so the volume of people are not there.
So my question really is, are we tracking occupancy?
What I've heard is that other companies come in finance
and protect the investors of the big buildings,
say, and basically say, okay,
anything that you have vacant will cover it,
and then they can use that inventory themselves.
So there's a lot of that happening.
And I'm just gonna say it's anecdotal at this point,
But the point being, that housing cost
is based on supply and demand.
And if people are manipulating supply,
the prices are not gonna go down, right?
And it's not gonna become affordable for anybody.
So I think the councils should consider,
or at least investigate that.
I know you're not gonna take action on this one.
But, and then think of ideas as to how can we
make it more transparent that when we want housing
to come in to make more inventory available for people
that in fact, that is the case.
That's all, thank you.
So thank you.
Have you spoken to anyone in our staff at City Hall
such as our community development department?
I have not.
So I like our community development department director
to say hello, maybe at some point you can reach out
and talk about maybe a little more specificity
if this is neighborhood specific
that you wanna get some information on.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you very much for being here.
Next speaker, please.
Good evening, Council and Mayor.
My name is Jeff Elfont.
I'm a business owner here in Walnut Creek,
and I've come to you this evening
because I've been increasingly concerned
about the escalating crime activity in Walnut Creek,
and there doesn't seem to be any resolution
or drive within the Council or the police department
to put any end to it,
and I think I reached the tipping point today
when I noticed that there was a vehicle smash
with 15 individuals in Broadway Plaza this morning.
They accessed Broadway Plaza Road
because the barriers were down.
I don't know who made that decision to remove the barriers,
but it's bordering now on incompetency
because it was obviously a significant deterrent
and whoever made that decision made a grave mistake
and a significant business paid for it this morning.
Also, just this past week, a sideshow with multiple vehicles
virtually across the street from City Hall.
And Saturday evening, a strong armed robbery on Oak Road.
So whether it's a lack of decision making
or incompetence among the council members
or a lack of responsiveness from our police chief,
I think something drastic needs to be done.
Corrections need to be made.
And I speak to this as a rather informed individual
as I'm wearing my former hat
that I wore at West Hollywood Sheriff's Station
for many years.
So please, some of you may need to resign your seats.
I don't know what the situation is, but do something.
Thank you.
Evening, Mayor, members of the council.
I'm Bob Lynch, I'm representing
the Walnut Creek Chamber of Commerce.
And I'm here tonight to talk about Shadelands.
Shadelands, as many of you know in the audience and council of course, represents about 3.4
million square feet, 106 property owners, and for some time the Chamber has acted as
an administrator for the Shadelands Property Owners Business Improvement District.
Some good news that's happening regarding Shadelands is the property owners voted in
this last plan to essentially conduct a rebranding exercise.
Creative Mint was retained, Creative Mint, as you may recall, conducted the effort to
rebrand Visit Walnut Creek, a new logo, help us create a strategy for our tourism program
where they've been retained to help rebrand Shadelands and they brought in EMC, who also
which should sound familiar.
They're a research firm that helped with your parks,
your future, helped you design Measure O,
and we're thrilled that they're involved in the process now
to help us rethink and rebrand the Shadelands.
I wanna thank the Mayor and Council Member Francois
for attending the Bash, the Business and Social Hour
at Calicraft last week.
It was quite well attended and to see the vision of what's planned at Collicraft,
at Shadelands was not only inspiring, but gratifying to see the turnout
that happened on that evening.
I suspect that the property owners will hear the results of the rebranding
and research study on the 13th and then we'll have more open conversation later that month,
later this month regarding the shade lens.
So we're thrilled with what's progressing so far
and thank the council for involvement.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Same question to you about the Bay Area Housing Finance
Authority, what they're proposing,
and the Chamber of Commerce is in this regional area,
how they will be looking at that issue.
I suspect maybe you can talk a little bit
about your political activity.
Sure. We speak almost daily to our partner at East Bay Leadership Council.
Housing and transportation are key components that we not only weigh in on legislative matters,
but we also feature that as part of our leadership program. It's a key component.
So yes, we're highly engaged and I don't know that we'll get to the forefront of
supporting housing projects that our friends at East Bay Leadership Council will do but
clearly it's on the forefront of our policy platform that we publish in our on our website so
thanks. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Lynch? I thank you thank you for being here.
We're going to go back to the our virtual and I will call on Mr. Trey Balenka. Can you hear me?
yes okay i'd like to speak on both the uh the housing and the crime not related to the other
items uh both in our wonderful city and across this once great country now well many of you know
this is being fueled primarily by bad government policy it's also being completely funded by the
taxpayers inflation is a tax and this and that inflation is simply an increase in the money
supply with 246 billion dollars is printed since the start of this month alone we aren't
air already being punished enough with a collapsing dollar and skyrocketing housing
crisis. We're also dealing with crumbling roads, bridges, worsening schools, overcrowded
service, rampant drug and crime problems. We have over 30 Jewish NGOs using our tax
dollars to fly and bust unvetted military-age foreigners to the Mexican border. Our current
director of so-called Homeland Security, a dual citizen with Israel, along with 80 percent
of Joe Biden's cabinet, is telling our Border Patrol agents to stand down and remove barriers
installed by state representatives
who were actually elected.
Our media, which is 96% controlled
by six Jewish corporations,
wants you to believe that these are starving families
looking for a better life.
92% of all border interactions in the last three years
have been men traveling alone.
They arrive with cell phones, clean clothes,
and food in their stomachs.
After they cross over here,
these same taxpayer-funded Jewish NGOs
are then qualifying these invaders
for benefits averaging over $4,000 a month.
How many entry-level jobs right now
Walnut Creek are paying over $40 an hour. These also aren't a singular group, which
means ethnic gang tensions will result in much more crime and violence. If multiculturalism
with abundant resources works so well, why is Brazil so poor with one of the highest
murder rates in the world? Guess what happens to housing prices and wages when you stop
paying for a bunch of people who never contributed to this country? They stay stable with an opportunity
for inventory to catch up, while the demand for labor goes up, thus increasing wages,
their tax income for things like we need for better police training, improved infrastructure,
schools, drug harm production programs, and programs for our veterans. We shouldn't have
to live like this. If we really want to solve our current housing and crime crisis, start with
solving the Jewish. The next speaker will be Donna Colombo, and she will be the last speaker
virtually. Good evening. Good evening Mayor Silva, city council members, and staff and community
members. I am Donna Colombo, Co-Chair of the Walnut Creek Homeless Task Force. On November
13th we'll host our sixth annual forum, Affordable Housing, Busting the Miss. Please join us from
6 to 8 p.m. to hear members of our panel of experts that will include affordable and market
rate housing developers, service providers, local employers, city leaders, all who will speak to
common myths and realities. Panellists will present the true impacts of affordable housing
and the challenges we face to build these structures. There will be time for Q&A as well.
The forum will be held in the Walnut Creek City Council chambers and via Zoom for attendees who
wish to participate online. Virtual attendees will need to register to receive a Zoom link,
but there is no fee to attend. The link to register is on our website wchomelesstaskforce.org
and you can also find out more information on the website. I really hope you all attend.
Glad to be part of the housing information this evening and thank you for for letting me speak.
Thank you and our last speaker this evening, Melissa Strongman.
Good evening Mayor Silva and City Council members, staff, and community members. My name is Melissa
Strongman and I'm a resident of Walnut Creek. I'm here tonight to talk about a project I am
very passionate about. That is Walnut Creek Community Service Day on October the 14th.
This year is the 13th year of community service and although there's been a few challenges and
changes, the volunteer spirit is very strong. As of tonight, there are over 750 volunteers
signed up. And on Saturday, October the 14th, 34 different organizations in our community
from schools, parks, libraries, nonprofits, art organizations, animal organizations will
have volunteers helping them with various tasks, cleaning books, creating art, landscaping
chores, cleaning a well-loved playground, mending costumes, painting fences and meter
poles, and setting up for a special event, picking up trash along the trail, and a food
drive.
So why do we have community service?
It builds community.
It expands volunteerism in our community, helps the less fortunate, teaches the next
generation, and gets work done.
There is plenty of room for additional volunteers to join on Saturday, October 14th.
Some of the projects that need more volunteers include WCI, Bancroft, Park Mead, Walnut Acres,
Walnut Heights and Northgate.
Not to mention the equestrian center,
Heather Farm Preschool Playyard, Pine Creek Habitat,
and the October evening shift.
So how do you sign up?
Best way, go to City of Walnut Creek website,
type in at search bar, community service day,
and you'll go right to where we are.
And thank you for those of you who've already signed up.
I know where you're going.
and thank you but join us. Thank you very much. We'll see if all my colleagues say
yes they're signed up. Yes well they are yes I know where most of them are going.
Thank you very much and thank you for the announcement. Thank you. Next item on our agenda
is council member and staff announcements reports on activities or requests. I'm going to have the
city manager go after us this evening because I know I think we're going to get a wrap up
a little bit on what's been going on today in the events. I'll start with Councilmember Wilk,
if you don't mind. All right, well for sitting on the board of directors for county connection
I was named vice chair of the board for the next year. I know that's quite the honor but all it
All it means is that if the chair is ever not there, then they're left with me running
the meeting.
But next week, we start the conference, the largest tri-annual conference for the American
Public Transit Association, of which, of course, County Connection is a member.
It's every three years, and it's in Orlando, and I'll be going as part of the board on
that.
Well, we will see all of the great innovations that come with what's happening in public
transit. One of the things that came is our own electric trolleys here that came
from when former Mayor Sue Rainey had the seat that I now have and she went
to this exact conference and saw this exact trolley and that's why we have
them so these are valuable for us and hopefully we'll be able to see some
great innovations that we can come and bring to our region. I was at the bed for
Gallery this last weekend, I saw Mayor Silva there,
I think Mayor Pro Tem Haskew is passing me
on the sidewalk back, it's called Bits and Pieces,
Contemporary Art on a Small Scale.
And I would have gone even if I were not the liaison
to the DRAA, because this is truly incredible.
It is about the cultural phenomenon of miniature things,
the precision and the intricacy is just amazing.
And I think it runs through mid-December.
A lot of people are gonna be going to a Christmas carol
and you can use your ticket and go in there
prior to a Christmas carol.
And any of the shows that you're in for Lesher Center.
So it is terrific.
I encourage everybody to go see that.
I believe that we had four of us
that were at the California League of Cities Conference
last week, Mayor Silva, Mayor Pro Tem,
Council Member Darling and myself.
I know that council member Francois would have been there had he not had a work commitment.
And it's just terrific with all the different sessions that there are of what's happening
in cities throughout the state.
We have almost 500 cities that participate, sessions on finances, cannabis, and a session
that I was a part of called Stop Hate and How Elected Officials Can Combat Hate Speech
and Hate Crimes.
And as we just heard tonight with somebody that is, I would say was probably part of
of the Nazi Party that shared his information.
These are the kind of things that we stand up for
as a community, as cities, as citizens,
and as just members of good community involvement.
And it's how elected officials
can stand together united on this.
It was a packed room and we had a great panel
with council members from Clayton, Richmond,
Fremont as well as El Cerrito and myself and we talked about what Walnut Creek has been implementing
and what some other cities have been implementing as well. We truly have been on the forefront of
this, you know, fortunately or unfortunately we were the ones that seem to be unfortunately on
the early adopter side of this from what we were hearing from some of these call-ins. We'll never
stop hate entirely but rebuking it and denouncing it in united fashion is where we can all make a
difference and everyone in that room made up of over 100 cities just in that
room in California committed as standing together and in support of each other in
standing up against hate and we're all committed to that and I want to thank my
fellow council members the council members that I was on the panel with in
Sacramento and cities up and down the state that are experiencing this as well
that's my report thank you mayor pro tem well he took some of my thunder so I'll
have a very short report. And mine actually is pretty much around music. I
want people to pay attention to what's happening in our theater because there
are all kinds of things, not just the theater and not just the gallery. It's I
went to the line dancing class that they had in front of it and my poor knees
couldn't stand pretty much more than a couple of dances, but it was grand fun to
watch all the young people and some pretty old people doing line dancing.
And then I was asked to attend the musical of the soloist from the
California Symphony who came to Trinity Center and played a concert of just her
violin and just her part of the concerto that she performed on the weekend and it was
stunning to see people who were fascinated by her and who listened and had amazing things to say.
So I kind of took it easy I guess and got the easy stuff. Councilmember Darling.
Thank you. Couple things. Donna Colombo, as she talked about the Walnut Creek Homeless Task Force,
we are having the forum in November, but at the last task force meeting we had a very interesting
presentation from a woman from an organization called Home Match that works to match people who
have room in their house and are having difficulty covering their bills with people that need a place
to live and they go through a process to kind of roommate match that's a little bit more
user friendly than just going on Facebook and trying to find a random person.
So that was a good innovative solution and I think that's something I know our housing
staff was there and I know they'll be looking at that.
I did go out to Golden Rain Foundation and we talked about a couple things including
the possibility that pickleball might be coming to Tice Valley and they've had their own pickleball
trials and tribulations and so they feel for us. They did ask about Oktoberfest and whether or
not there was good parking so we'll make sure I'll make sure to get back to them and tell them that
there is parking for them. Are there shuttle buses at Rossmore still running? There are. I don't know
if they actually go to Oktoberfest though. Sometimes they can special program them or
but they may not be working on the weekend anymore since Covid. And also I went to CalCities with my
my fellow council members, Mayor Pro Tem,
and I really enjoyed it.
There was a couple great presentations.
One was about fire safety and the city of Berkeley
and Arinda Moraga and just watching that.
It just impressed upon me how important this is gonna be.
One of the interesting things I heard from that presentation
was that the research they've done after the Paradise Fire
is a lot of people worry about setbacks,
but when you get into one of those mass problems,
He said, if you're closer than 100 feet,
plus or minus doesn't really matter,
which was really interesting to me.
So by setback, you don't mean housing setback.
You mean the clear space.
It had to do with, somebody came in and asked,
well, if we are trying to minimize all these setbacks,
aren't we making fire risk worse?
And they said, no, actually, once you're a certain point,
the fire risk is there.
If you're in a mass event where the firefighters
can't get to put one house out,
it will ignite the next one,
if they're within a certain distance, which was interesting.
And lastly, I did attend the session
that Kevin Wilk and his fellow council members had,
and I thought it was really a good chance for people
to hear each other, to support each other,
and know that we're not alone.
Mr. Trey Blinka and Ms. Holocost can call in,
but we as a community are committed to working together
and valuing each other and standing up for each other.
So that was a good presentation.
So thank you.
Thank you.
Council Member Francois.
Thank you, Mayor.
I, as the Council's liaison
to the Walnut Creek Chamber Board,
I attended the board meeting
and got an update on various different happenings.
The city manager gave a good report on behalf of the city,
as did other community groups.
Of note, although it seems that all is quiet
on our Western front,
the western front being Locust Street.
Central sand work is expected to begin
in the middle of October,
so you can expect some delays
and issues associated with that.
The headliner really was to announce
the women's conferences coming back in March, March 5th.
It'll be held again at the Lesher Center
as it was this year.
The theme is her story in the making.
Two of the three keynote speakers have been lined up
and I'm not going to tell you who they are
because there's early bird pricing.
So if you go onto the website before the end of the year,
you can qualify for that early bird pricing,
find out who the fantastic speakers are
and sign up for next year's women's conference.
I also attended the economic development working group
meeting where we had a presentation from Tim Hale,
executive director of CCTA,
who's a really impressive guy, generally,
and has a lot of interesting things to say
about transportation in our area,
autonomous vehicles potentially coming to Rossmore,
and also the testing they're doing out
at the Concord Naval Weapon Station.
He talked a little bit about a potential,
I believe it's a tax measure, not a bond measure,
which would be essentially a continuation of Measure J
that may come as early as 2028.
But he made it clear that first he wanted to do,
go out on the listening tour and find out what the needs are
and what that money could be used for
and how much and so forth.
So that's coming, that'll be,
he's working on that diligently now.
We heard an update on the Diablo Valley Tech Initiative,
which several chamber board members had attended.
They were also very grateful for their work
with our city manager and assistant city manager,
economic development staff,
on refining the economic development action plan.
Let's see.
I attended the Recycle Smart Board meeting last week,
and many of you, Republic Services handles
the garbage collection, recycle collection
for our area, Walnut Creek, and other cities.
Many of you, myself included,
have had missed services, and that's unacceptable
to all of us on the board.
What it's important to do is when you get a missed service
to email Republic Services or to call them,
because their future pay increases are dependent
on how many complaints they receive.
So it's important that you do that.
It's also something that you can do,
and I did it while we were in our board meeting,
while still carefully listening
to everything that was going on,
was that you can update your profile
on the Republic Services page.
If you don't have one, you can sign up to get it.
Make sure that they have your cell number
so that if they do,
if your green can is going to get missed that day,
they'll text you so at least you'll have a warning.
And then what you will immediately do
is you will phone Republic Services
and complain about the missed service.
The larger item that we talked about,
that is the main item
because what we are trying to do
is make sure that all those items get picked up on time,
that's what you're paying for,
and that's what we expect to happen.
But we talked about the process going forward,
extending the contract with new providers,
and certainly with the collection portion of this,
we wanna go through an RFP process,
primarily because the service levels
have not been where they should be,
and we wanna see what the market can generate
in terms of, through a competitive process,
on providing the collection services.
On the post collection, which essentially where the items go
in terms of the landfill, that's worked relative,
no one really has a major problem
with the landfill side of things.
The landfill that we contract for is Keller Canyon,
which is the closest landfill.
There's no large cost increases associated with that.
So the board gave direction to enter
into sole source negotiations on the landfill services
with Republic and also with Mount Diablo Recycling
for the reuse and cleanup day because they,
our consultant said they were one of the best
in the business in terms of providing that service
and so that'll continue on with them in the future.
I had looked on Republic Service's website
for this fancy item called Hello Recycling Bin,
which essentially is a QR code that you can scan.
believe it's being mailed out to every Republic services member. It's not on the
website yet so I'm asked staff where we can get that but essentially when you're
standing before the three bins not knowing where to put an item you can
scan this QR code and it will direct you where to put the item. Will it direct my
husband on where to put the item? I'm taking this one out. Yes it works on men and women apparently.
And then finally, as Bob Lynch I'd mentioned, it was a fun event attending with the mayor
out at Cali Craft.
It was a nice fall evening, a good group of people, over a hundred people, great beer.
Blaine Landberg, the owner of Cali Craft was there and really excited about working on
the city on his new beer hall and a lot of fun activities to come.
That is my update.
Thank you.
from my calendar the East Bay radio communication system which is the
public safety radio system for the two counties Alameda and Contra Costa
represents 43 agencies and their police and fire public safety departments
across more than 2 million people. We have been in operation since 2007 and
had very few rate increases. Basically our public safety agencies pay $30 per
or radio per month.
So if we have 100 radios that we're using here
in Walnut Creek, including some probably
in our public works department,
then you can do the simple math.
Well, the reality is over time,
you cannot get around the cost of living
and CPI increases as well as the normal increases
that would be necessary just to maintain the system.
And so we're looking to having very serious conversations.
Some of the board members are in uniform
when we're having these serious conversations
about what are we going to need to do
in order to gradually increase the rates
so that we can ensure that we can maintain the system.
I would also mention related to Recycle Smart,
add on to Council Member Francois' report
that we're going into the 10th year of this contract period
and by March, 2024, there will be minor rate increases
for garbage recycling and organics collection services
because those rates go up proportionately with the CPI.
I enjoyed a one hour session
at the Chamber of Commerce Civic Affairs Group.
It was a small group of people and representatives
from Assemblymember Bauer-Kehen's office,
Senator Glaser's office, Supervisor Carlson,
and I presented updates on what we're doing
in the city and issues,
but they were particularly focused
on transportation and housing.
and I had a lot of housing questions,
so it seems to be the message of the day.
And then a last few things about the conference
for the League of California Cities.
I finished four years as serving as an officer.
Two weeks ago, I am no longer past president.
I know, now I get to sit at the kids table again
on the side of the room.
I am a member of the board of directors.
But as past president, I had the honor
of hosting a past president's luncheon.
were about 15 past presidents there and they had basically selected their lifetime achievement
award each year and this year it was Betsy Strauss who has been the special legal counsel
to the League of California Cities for decades and was instrumental in Proposition 1A and
has also been instrumental in the analysis of what the California Business Roundtable
was proposing that would go on the November 2024 ballot.
I had the opportunity to basically have basically a button holder for about 45 minutes and talk
to her about the ins and outs of that, and it is the death star, and we need to be very
conscious of that.
I also had the opportunity to sit next to, at the past president's lunch, the president
of the League of California Cities in the year that Prop 13 was adopted, and what he
had to do going around the state to talk to every city and help them figure out
what they were going to do in the wake of Proposition 13. So there is a model
for what to do in the wake of catastrophe. Thank you all for everything
that you are doing on behalf of the community and working with all of
liaisoning with all of these entities. And with that I mean do you need to turn
to the city manager and the city attorney. City attorney do we have any
closed session announcements. Madam Mayor I don't have any closed session
announcements but with the council's indulgence I just like to recognize that
tonight is Brian Hickey's last evening as the Assistant City Attorney before he
takes over in his new position as the City Attorney of San Pablo. We are very
proud of Brian's accomplishments and Brian has provided about 12 years of
very dedicated service to Walnut Creek.
He is loved by the staff.
He does a great job on behalf of the city.
I understand he's a pretty good baseball player as well too,
probably a good golfer and very, yeah, that's right.
But I just wanted to take this moment to say
that it has been an absolute pleasure to work with Brian
this entire time and I'm very happy for him
as he takes on this new responsibility
and thank you very much, Brian.
So Mr. Hickey would you please step to the podium so that we can so that you
everybody can see you on camera for probably one of the very few times
because our attorneys are behind the scenes so much of the time. Brian Hickey
Assistant City Attorney at least for a few more days here. And thank you. We've
been tenured together and it's been an honor to work with you. My colleagues. I
I always found when I was on planning commission and you have some really wackadoodle question. Brian was always willing to
Calm me down like okay. Let's walk through this. I really appreciate all that you've done for us
Yeah, I want to echo that too. I think it's a real
Art to be able to not only provide good quality legal services
But to do it in a very personable way and you you've mastered that and I and we were all the beneficiary for it
and so
you know, San Pablo's gain is definitely our loss and thank you very much for your service to Wanla Creek.
Councilmember Wilk? Well, they've said it all but I'll say a little bit more.
Personally, you're a friend, I'm gonna miss you and seeing your smiling face and chatting about whatever when we're in the office.
But you've been terrific and when I've had some legal questions that have been more in your purview,
you've called me immediately back, sometimes before I could even put the phone down,
with clear, concise answers always available.
I know that the feedback that we got from staff
that we wouldn't even see was always terrific.
And I really appreciate everything you've done.
Just one more reason, or maybe one reason
for me to go to San Pablo.
Thanks, Brian.
Mayor Pro Tem.
Okay, that leaves me.
And all the kind things, double for me,
you're brilliant and all that other.
but you could never tell what your face
was going to look like.
Because sometimes it had beards,
and sometimes it had mustaches.
So I always look forward to coming here
to see what was changed.
And I know that you adore your family,
and I hope this means that you get to see more of them.
And thank you so much for your service.
Appreciate all the kind words I would.
I would just emphasize that working for the city of Walnut Creek really has been a privilege.
You know, when you come, you don't know how long you're going to be here in almost 12 years.
It really has been my pleasure.
It's a privilege that I've never taken for granted, and I've truly enjoyed it.
It's a cliche, but cliches are cliches because there's truth in them.
And, you know, this really is a family,
not only council, planning commissioners,
staff out here, I've enjoyed working with all of you,
and moving on doesn't mean that that family dynamic changes.
And so I don't expect to be a stranger,
and I really do thank you for this opportunity.
I'm excited for my new opportunity,
but I will miss everyone here, so thanks very much.
Thank you, Brian, best wishes city manager.
I'm sure you have some things to report,
including getting us maybe in conjunction with the chief,
a little bit of a low down on what's been transpiring.
Yeah, let me start with a different item.
And fortunately, it's a tough act to follow.
My updates are not nearly as positive for this evening.
So the first being I wanted to announce that tonight,
after tonight's city council meeting,
the city will be discontinuing remote public comments
for future city council and commission meetings.
The practice that was in place prior to COVID
is the one that will be used going forward.
The reason the city is making this change
is because of the continued hate speech
that has been occurring here at Walnut Creek
and throughout other cities throughout the Bay Area
and throughout the state of California.
Unfortunately, it is spreading.
The callers, the best we're able to identify
from outside of Walnut Creek and outside of California are those that have been making
these vile comments for the past few months.
And I would add that I think it's really a sad state of affairs that we are feeling the
need to make this decision.
The technology of Zoom or other remote options is intended to help more people feel welcome
to participating in their local government, and instead these callers making these comments
of hijack meetings throughout the state to make people feel less welcome,
which is really just sad in my opinion.
And I think everybody's opinion who's here on the dais and elsewhere.
So going forward, individuals will be able to provide public comment
in person or in writing, and the council meetings can be viewed
for those that don't want to come in person.
They can view them at home on the city's website at walnut hyphen creek dot org
on YouTube or on cable television.
So that is the first of the updates, Mayor, as you're referencing.
There was at four thirty a.m.
this morning a very coordinated robbery attempt.
And I do want to highlight attempt here of one of the stores in Broadway Plaza.
There were about 15 individuals that drove a vehicle through the reinforced window
at one of the stores here and in Walnut Creek.
The police responded within one minute, broke up the attempt.
Obviously, there was still damage that was done.
One of the vehicles has been confiscated.
Other evidence is being gathered.
There was a pursuit of some of the vehicles that fled.
There was one vehicle that was used to attempt
to destroy the store and drive into it.
Other vehicles that had fled the scene when the police arrived,
again, after one minute.
Chase did ensue, however, due to the high speed nature
and the potential public safety at risk,
the police did back off that.
So I can assure you, obviously, the chief can provide more information.
This is of significant concern.
We take this very seriously.
We will attempt to track these folks down and make as many arrests as possible
because this type of behavior will not be tolerated in Walnut Creek.
Questions from my colleagues for the city manager or the chief?
I saw the press release regarding the robbery attempt.
And I just hope that as more information that
can be made available is made available just
to keep people from, obviously, not everything
because we want to catch them.
And I appreciate your previous comments.
As the person who has been the subject of a lot
of the targeting of some of this hate speech,
and I've got new friends up and down California
that have experienced it as well.
And some cities, frankly, are experiencing it.
And they have nobody that's Jewish on their city council.
Doesn't matter.
Hate just moves from one group to another.
So it is unfortunate because this has been a great way
of being able to communicate.
It was truly the one silver lining
that came out of the pandemic,
especially what we've got 15% of our population
lives in Rossmore and that's 10,000 people there.
And it was a convenience.
And unfortunately, this group,
I think it's a fairly small group,
but they're all, it seems like they're all from outside
the county, the states, calling from across the country.
And it's not just making people feel unwelcome,
but they have changed the dynamic of public discourse
in city council meetings, and that is a real shame.
Local government is the most,
every poll that's taken is the most trusted form
of government of the public by a long shot.
And we have, unfortunately, had to make this decision because of that.
And it is a shame.
But we can't continue to be a platform for amplifying hate speech.
So I appreciate your comments.
And unfortunately, I do support the decision.
Thank you for your work, city manager.
And Chief, please thank your department.
To be one minute able to respond at 4.30 AM is amazing,
because I know that there are, come on down.
I know that's a challenge at that time of the early morning,
and I appreciate that.
Good evening, Madam Mayor,
members of the council, Jamie Knox, Chief of Police.
Yes, I want to highlight another incident that happened as well.
So we did have a vehicle doing donuts out here,
or what some people would call a sideshow.
Technically it is a sideshow because somebody was filming it,
so it's two or more people involved.
Nobody called us, not one phone call.
So our comm center is on the other side of this building,
and our dispatchers couldn't even hear it.
So at that time we had 12 units out and about,
but they were all tied up on other calls.
One call in particular were about 20 subjects
fighting at Retro Junkie,
and then another domestic violence call.
But not one person called us.
So if the community calls us, we can respond
and we'll certainly respond swiftly and take action.
And then on this particular one, yeah,
I'm really proud of our staff
and I'm thankful to the citizens
that called 911 immediately.
We got multiple calls immediately
and our officers arrived at Louis Vuitton within a minute
and engaged in the pursuit
as city manager, Buckshi had mentioned.
I'm also proud of our staff
for understanding when too much is too much
Because at the end of the day, a life
is not worth any amount of property.
So I'm just glad nobody was hurt.
And we will work closely with Broadway Plaza and Louis Vuitton
to make sure we can harden that target.
And I do want to say, Walnut Creek is not an easy target.
It's an attractive target.
And as long as you have high-end storage,
you're going to have that risk.
So we just have to be diligent, but we
have to work closely with our business community.
We can't do it by ourselves.
and please call us and please call the tip line.
I even have that number.
If you have any information about Louis Vuitton,
it's 925-943-5865, anonymous tip line.
And we're continuing to work with Broadway Plaza
on hardening and the rest of the business community,
on hardening businesses to prevent the opportunistic events.
Absolutely, and I still need to open a recruitment
for our crime prevention staff member that your council approved,
so we will make that a priority so that we can get that person here
and get them to work right away.
Great. Thank you very much.
Thanks.
Thank you, city manager.
And I know that the decision
about future meetings was a difficult one, but it's the right one.
And I was participating in a panel conversation
at the American Association of University Women, and they wanted to know how
to get women and young people more involved
at the local level.
And I said one of the biggest detriments now is fear.
Intimidation and fear that occurs in our environment.
And so eliminating that and reducing the likelihood
of that is important, so thank you.
Next item on our agenda is a public hearing this evening.
We're looking to modify the land use development
and tree preservation regulations
in our single family residential zones as necessary to comply with state law Senate bill
9 relating to additional dwelling units and subdivisions who's going to tee this up is
it are we going to Erica first and then to if I may I'm Erica van and brand community
development director here at the city of Walnut Creek with that I will introduce Sun Quan
our Assistant Community Development Director,
who will introduce the topic matter
and then also be supported by Heather Coleman,
the consultant on this SB9 issue.
Good evening, Mayor Silvan and Council.
Sun Kwon, Assistant Director of Community Development.
Microphone directly.
Yes.
Tonight we'll be presenting
the Plan Commission's recommendation
for the permanent SB9 ordinance.
This is one of the many ordinances
that staff will be bringing to the planning commission
and the city council as part of the six cycle
housing element implementation.
Our consultant Heather Coleman will present
plan commission's specific recommendations
for the SB9 ordinance.
After Heather's presentation,
we will be available to answer any questions
and take direction as provided by the city council.
Good evening.
Good evening council members.
Can you hear me okay?
My name is Heather Coleman.
I'm a planning consultant who focuses on zoning ordinance
updates and amendments and I've been helping out
the planning division with coming up
with a permanent SB 9 ordinance.
So the task tonight is to consider
a permanent SB 9 ordinance that would replace
the interim ordinance that was adopted at the end of 2021.
hear public comments, and if you deem it appropriate,
adopt a permanent SB 9 ordinance.
So just to recap, brief recap on SB 9,
the intent was to help alleviate California's housing crisis
and provide housing variety.
It requires cities and counties to allow duplexes
on lot splits in single family residential zones,
and I can go into more detail on that later.
It allows but does not require cities to adopt local ordinances that that
incorporate the SB 9 provisions and set standards over some aspects of SB 9
projects. It went into effect at the beginning of 2022. So on the verge of SB
going into effect. This council adopted an urgency ordinance and then extended
that ordinance twice in 2022. That urgency ordinance reflected the basic
standards of SB 9 and it set local standards to the degree that was allowed
that is allowed under SB 9 for example a height limit a floor area limit objective
design standards, hillside protection, tree protection, and minimum lot frontage.
So part of the purpose of the urgency ordinance was to allow the city additional time to consider
and analyze what it wanted for permanent regulations.
In the intervening time, new information has come to the fore.
That includes other jurisdictions have now adopted SB9 ordinances.
So we had the opportunity to compare what they've done with what Walnut Creek did.
And that is included as one of the addenda to your report, to your staff report.
We looked at neighboring jurisdictions as well as some other jurisdictions in the Bay
Bay Area, to see what they had done in some of the areas where cities have leeway to adopt
local standards.
An important new factor is the six cycle housing element and the policy direction that it provides,
which I'll speak to a little bit more on the next slide.
Now that the interim regulations have been in place for over a year and a half, staff
has had experience interacting with members of the public
at the planning counter and reviewing a few applications
for SB 9 projects.
It turns out there are only three applications that
have come in so far, and only one
has gotten a building permit.
So the uptake on SB 9 has been slow,
But, you know, staff has staff's experience in applying the ordinance to the as as property owners come in and forms the recommendations that we're making.
So the twenty twenty three to twenty thirty one housing element has important policies and programs that are relevant tonight.
It includes goals to encourage housing types
for all economic segments of the community,
to facilitate affordable housing opportunities,
particularly for workers, first time home buyers,
and lower income renters, and increase housing opportunity
and mobility outside of the core area.
And very importantly, and I put it up at the top,
One of the housing implementation programs
is to codify Senate Bill 9.
So although I said earlier, cities
are not required to adopt SB 9 ordinances, local ordinances.
It is part of your housing element program,
so it is necessary.
In addition, I mean, the housing element
is when part of the general plan, the built environment
element from 2006 also has important goals to keep in mind.
And goal five requires that infill development
be compatible with its surroundings.
And one of the policies under that speaks to the same thing.
So some of the steps that we've taken
in preparing a permanent ordinance,
we posted an online public survey from mid-July
to early August.
We got over 600 responses.
They were to multiple choice questions as well
as open-ended comments.
And that's included as one of the appendices to your report.
Wide range of public comments received.
We held a study session with the Planning Commission on July 27.
And at that, for each of the areas where the city does
have the ability, where there is some leeway,
as to how the city regulates SB 9 projects.
We presented the Planning Commission
with several alternatives.
We heard their feedback, and then we
prepared draft regulations, which we brought back
to them on August 24.
And so the Planning Commission's recommendations
are reflected in the draft ordinance
that we're bringing to you tonight for your consideration.
So some of the various objectives
that we're attempting to balance in the ordinance
that we're presenting are listed here.
So SB 9 provides some opportunities,
both for the city to provide some small scale infill
housing units, and create units that can be affordable
or moderate, or moderately priced,
than detach single family dwellings.
And to provide options for property owners,
including creating small units on their lots
for family members of different generations.
At the same time, we heard from both the Planning Commission
and the public, a desire to respect the patterns of existing single-family neighborhoods, and
the privacy of adjacent neighbors, or neighbors that might be adjacent to SB9 projects.
So oops, here we go.
Our approach is to keep the bulk of the interim regulations, and much of the interim regulations
are just implementing and reflecting,
incorporating the basics of SB9 that are already
fixed in state law, such as the number of units,
the minimum setbacks, minimum lot area, excluded areas,
and other provisions that are part of SB9.
We also believe it's very important
to carry forward the hillside protection and tree protection
sections.
In certain other areas, we are recommending
some adjustments to the interim regulations.
Those are floor area, height, parking, lot frontage and access and the order of waving
standards which I'll explain and development impact fee and we'll go through each of those.
So before we get into the recommended changes, I wanted to just review some of the provisions
of SB 9 so that we have that kind of as a backdrop for what we can do and what we can
do.
The number of units is already is already set in SB 9 on undivided lots
Property owner can develop two primary units
so that is either a duplex or two separate single-family homes on one lot and
The number of ADUs or JADUs that is permitted under state law on divided lots
They
An owner can do two units on the lot
Whether those are primary or accessory dwelling units.
So setbacks.
State law or SB 9 specifically says that cities cannot require more than four feet on the
interior side or the rear of a lot for SB 9 developments.
And if there's an existing structure that's converted to an SB 9 unit, say a detached
garage, then no setback is required.
And a final important item is that no standard
that the city sets can physically
preclude the construction of two 800 square foot units per lot.
Providing this slide mainly as reference
in case questions come up about what the current setbacks are
for the single-family residential districts
and what the current maximum lot coverage standards are.
So just wanted to illustrate the difference
between a standard setback, and this
would be in the R10 district, which
is the most common district in Walnut Creek.
So in the zoning district regulations,
there's a 15 foot rear setback required
and there's a minimum five foot side setback
and then aggregate, the two side setbacks
must add up to 15 feet.
So a typical layout might be five and 10.
But under SB9, city can only require four feet.
So floor area, the interim ordinance
took a very cautious approach and allowed only SB 9 units to only be 800 square feet.
And that's the minimum size that the city has to allow under SB 9.
One thing to point out is that the size limits for ADUs, accessory dwelling units, range
from 850 square feet to 1,000 square feet, depending on the size of the lot and the number
of bedrooms. So one thing that staff has noticed in interacting with counter customers is that
when property owners are inquiring about building another unit on their lot,
they often stop when they realize that they stop pursuing SB 9 when they realize that they could
only build 800 square feet. So one thing that the proposal would do would create greater parity
between the AD a DU regulations and the SB 9 regulations what we heard from the
Planning Commission is that they really wanted to and I also want to point out
that in in the residential zoning districts there is no floor area limit
for single-family dwellings so the size of a single-family dwelling is going to
depend on your setbacks, your height limit,
and your lot coverage maximum.
And that creates what we call a building envelope,
so like a big tent over the property.
So aside from that, there's not a maximum floor area
that applies to single family dwellings.
So the planning commissioners wanted
to rely on those zoning district regulations,
like setbacks, heights, and lot coverage
to really define what's buildable instead of saying,
you can build a single family home that is infinitely large,
but an SB9 unit can only be 800 square feet.
So what we've come up with is if all buildings on the lot,
so the SB9 units and as well as any other outbuildings,
comply with the standard setbacks and lot coverage
of the zoning district, then there's
no maximum floor area for the primary dwelling units,
by which we mean an existing single-family home.
Obviously, we're not going to restrict its size,
because it's already there.
And any new SB 9 units, so that would include a new duplex,
or it could include somebody already has a house,
and they want to build an additional dwelling
on their lot utilizing SB 9.
So that's if they comply with all the setbacks
and the lot coverage limits of the district.
And then another thing that the planning commission expressed
is a concern about units
that might be close to a neighbor's lot.
And furthermore, how large a...
So they wanted to provide a little more flexibility
in the size, not keep it to 800 square feet,
but they said that that should be tied to lot area.
So what we're proposing is that if an SB9 unit
does not meet your standard setback,
but does meet the forefoot setback
as required under state law, which it must do,
then that SB9 unit would need to be limited in area
on a sliding scale based on lot area.
If there are questions, we can come back to this.
And then building height.
The interim ordinance limited SB9 units to 16 feet,
which it was the same height limit that applies to ADUs.
And that was regardless of whether it was an attached
dwelling unit or detached.
So for example, somebody might have a large house,
and they decided to not add on at all but divide it into two.
the height of the SB9 unit would have to be 16 feet.
So we noticed in looking at other cities ordinances
that several of them had adopted a requirement that as long
as it meets the standard setbacks,
an SB9 projects can go up to the standard height.
But if they don't, then they need
to stay at the ADU height limit.
And the regular height limit in Walnut Creek
is usually 25 feet and two stories.
So that's what we're proposing is that if the SB9 units meet
the standard setbacks, they can be the same height
as other buildings in the same zoning district.
They can be the same height as single family dwellings.
But if they don't, then their height
should be limited to 16 feet and one story.
So that addresses that, or that it's
intended to address the concern about units that might be close to a
neighboring property and too high. Parking state law says that the city can
only require one parking space per SB 9 unit. It is silent with regard to whether
the parking is covered or how it's configured. The Planning Commission
recommended continuing to require the one parking space but allowing it to be
uncovered so that the lot coverage that somebody is making use of can be used
for for housing as opposed to garages and another another one of the the
arguments was that sometimes people put up a carport that is just to meet the
coverage requirement but doesn't end up being very attractive that's another
reason to just allow uncovered parking.
Objective design standards, the ones in the interim ordinance are already very solid.
They talk about matching the existing house.
They talk about not having two doors facing the street in order to maintain the single
family residential appearance.
They talk about garage conversion, so for example, if somebody converted a garage to
a new unit and an SB 9 unit then how would how would we want them to treat
the door so that it doesn't look strange and then the windows on second stories
having a certain sill height in order to protect the privacy of adjacent
neighbors so we were recommending and the Planning Commission recommended
retaining all of those design standards and also adding a reference to the new
new citywide objective design standards so that when they're adopted those will also
apply to SB 9 projects and it should be pointed out that any standards have to be objective
and the new objective design standards are clearly divided in between standards and guidelines.
So moving on to lot splits, this is the other key part of SB 9, so some of the things that
cities must do or they must allow is the division of an existing lot into two
lots as long as each lot is at least 40% of the area of the original parcel so it
could be 50-50 or 40-60 something thereabouts and each lot must be at
least 1200 square feet. Once a lot is divided through SB 9 it cannot be
divided again and the applicant must at least sign an affidavit saying they
and they tend to occupy one of the units as their residence.
I just wanted to show this because these
are the type of possible lot configurations
that you could see.
Because most of the lots already have a house on them,
you're sort of unlikely to get the side by side lot split.
And you're more likely to see a flag lot
or a flag lot with an easement and that's just a private,
you know, a private drive accessing the rear property
via an easement over the front lot.
So in the interim ordinance,
we said that the flagpole portion of a lot needs to be
at least 24 feet.
In looking at other jurisdictions,
we saw that most of them don't require such a great width.
And the 24 feet could preclude use of SB 9 because many laws already have an existing
house on it on them.
And we saw some other jurisdictions in Contra Costa County simply referred to the county
fire protection district and other public safety and utility standards.
One thing to point out, we received some questions from the mayor about the ‑‑ say the other
utility districts include the water districts, and it turns out there are two water districts,
so instead of saying and both of the water districts that we should change that to say
or.
So that's a change that we can make.
So in this scenario in which you're accessing the rear lot via easement instead of a separate
flagpole part of your property, in the interim ordinance we said you can only do that if
direct street frontage would physically preclude the lot split.
But the city does allow easements in other situations.
So the Planning Commission recommended that instead of only allowing easements if it can't
be done any other way, to just rely on the Fire Protection District and other public
safety and utility agencies, if it meets their standards, then it's good enough.
And then this one is a little tricky, but let me explain it.
So SB9 says that no standard that the city adopts can physically preclude at least two
units that are at least 800 square feet in area.
And the interim ordinance adopted pretty standard language around that.
It was good.
It assigned the planning manager to make those determinations.
I've since learned that that needs to be changed to community development director.
So we'll make that, we'll correct that.
But in looking at other cities ordinances, we saw a really promising approach in Lafayette
in which instead of just saying any standard that needs to be waived can be as needed
to accommodate these two 800 square foot units, let's set an order in which we think the standard
should be waived so that we know what's most important.
Like we wave one first and then if they still
can't do the development, then we wave the next one,
then the next one.
So we better just go to the next slide.
So this is the order that staff and the Planning Commission
came up with.
So the idea is that first, you would waive number one.
And then if you still can't do your project,
then you wave number two, and then you
wave distance between buildings and then
lot coverage, hillside, rear setback, interior side setback,
and down the line.
I want to point out that this order does also
helps address the concern with adjacent buildings
getting too high.
Because you can wave lot coverage as number four.
You can't wave height until you get to number 10.
And we can come back to this if you have questions.
Development impact fees.
Under the interim ordinance, SB9 units
were subject to all development impact fees,
and those include traffic impact, parkland dedication,
and inclusionary housing in lieu fees.
By contrast, ADUs are not subject to development impact
fees, so to create greater parity in between the ADU
development opportunities and the SB9 development
opportunities, we're recommending continuing
to charge the other development impact fees for SB9 units,
so those the parkland dedication and the traffic impact fees,
but exempting units that comply with ADU floor areas
from the inclusionary housing requirement.
The one application that has gone to building permit
has written extensive comments about the amount of fees
that they paid in the inclusionary housing in lieu
for the inclusionary housing in lieu fees.
And it seems to be a barrier for utilizing SB 9.
Finally, this is a clarification item.
So after a lot split, the state law only
says that cities have to allow two units.
And in the interim ordinance, it was
written as they need to be either duplex or single family
dwellings.
So they need to be primary units.
And we wanted to clarify that it could also
be a primary unit and one accessory dwelling unit.
So our recommendation is to move to introduce and waive
for the reading of the ordinance amending portions
of Title III, Chapter 8, and Title 10 of the Walnut Creek
Municipal Code pertaining to the regulation of second dwellings
and urban lot splits in single-family residential zones.
And with that, we are open to questions.
Thank you very much.
So council members,
I'm gonna start with council member Francois.
You're the land use attorney.
Take care of all of it for us.
Well, first of all, thank you very much.
That was very comprehensive and thorough
and very well explained,
which is a difficult topic really
when you get into all the nuances of this
and comparing it to the ADUs.
I did have a few questions to start,
and then I'll turn it over to my colleagues
and probably have more after that.
But on the sliding scale, if the units are not
consistent with the lot coverage and the setbacks,
I just want to confirm that that sliding scale is essentially
the same scale we use for ADU size.
It's not.
It's a little broader.
Should we go back to that slide?
Yeah.
OK.
one clarifying question too the staff report refers to that as net lot area is
that intended to be net or gross? Oh I will have to I will have to check on
that. I think it's probably gross. And can I ask a question to add on to that is
that the lot area presumed based on what zoning district you're in or is it
actual square footage of your own lot because my lot is nonconforming in my
Zoning District and we're going to get into a lot of arguing at the counter unless I just
walk in and say I'm an R-10 and you go, okay, let's look it up on the table.
It's your actual law area, but we did try to tie these to the standard minimum law areas
Walnut Creek's single-family residential districts. So for example the R8.5 has a
minimum lot area of 8,500 square feet, R10, 10,000 square feet, and so on.
So we can get to whether that's gross or net lot area, but it you said it was a
little different than ADU? Yeah the ADU floor area is well it only allows 850
square feet up to a thousand square feet and it's it's a more compressed range.
I do I think it's included in the staff report also the ADU limits. And I also
have it on a slide at the end if you'd like to. So that kind of I don't know I
think that I'm good for now on that. So essentially for the ADU lot size the
range is from 850 to a thousand based on similar lot areas that are described
here and this is the proposed limit on SB 9 unit size if there's non-conformants
with the lot coverage and setbacks. Exactly. Exactly. So it's I had asked a
question earlier why not just limit the SB 9 units the second unit I'll say to
800 square feet like we do in the interim ordinance if there was not
conformance with lot coverage and setback, and I think staff said it's
it's a simply it's because what we do it's similar to what we do with ADUs
which is accurate to some extent but it's more compressed I guess in terms of
the allowable size area. With this you can get up to essentially 1,400 square
feet with an SB9 unit. Right, right. Depending on the lot size. Yeah it's to create a bit more parity with the
the ADU size limits because they go up to 1,000 square feet and 800 square feet is a
lot less than that.
And because on a very large lot, I think if I can do my best to paraphrase the thinking
of the planning commission it was you know this this would be a reasonable
size on on a half-acre lot. I just want to make sure so when we talk about lot
area that is the lot area post lot split mm-hmm okay thanks yeah if they split
the lot okay council if I made that on those slide that's on the screen right
now that in the ordinance is identified as net lot area so that's after
accounting for the setback accounting for the street dedication yeah it it's not
set back I would have to look up the definition of net lot area in your code
but typically it excludes it's meant to exclude streets if somebody's doing a
subdivision okay so that that okay that that's helpful okay let's just all get
let's all know no no no no no no these three have a planning commission
experience and I am I am clawing my way to understanding can somebody at least
Please clarify to me the difference between an ADU and a new building, SB 9.
So the, it's really in the manner in which the statute has set forth the requirements
and so there are in the law, under California law now, SB 9 units and ADUs and as the council
is aware there's multiple types of ADUs.
There's junior ADUs, et cetera.
And so just think of them as just defined differently.
From a practical standpoint,
if you have an 800 square foot unit
or an 850 square foot unit or a 1,000 square foot unit,
it could be one or the other.
Right now under the interim ordinance,
if it's an SB9 unit, it can only be 800 square feet,
but under the proposal here,
could potentially be larger but they're they're just defined terms under the law
they're not physically they operate in the same manner they're they're fully
self-contained living units kitchens bathrooms etc thank you that was very
helpful because I kept thinking okay I'm I'm gonna put something in my backyard
and and I don't know if I go for a permission a permit what which one do I
ask for it and seem to me like they could both look the same and act the
same except for the limitations of size. Yeah so the difference in size they're
both ministerially approved so they're both staff approved if you will and and
so they could look very similar but the sizes the sizes are different and there
are different restrictions for instance if you do a lot split under SB 9 state
law does not require you, that you allow any ADUs at all. In fact, if you have one house
on the lot now and you do a lot split, you can end up with two units on each lot, if
you will. Whereas if you have a house now and you add an ADU or a JADU, and under SB9,
if you don't split the lot, you can have the primary house, the existing house. You can
have an SB 9 house you can have an ADU and a JADU on the same not on your lot
I don't even qualify for the flagpole there's not enough room on either side
for a car to drive. On the inclusionary fee then I'm trying to understand
Planning Commission recommended that it there's no inclusionary fee imposed on
on ADUs is my understanding.
That's my understanding too.
I mean, by state law, there can't be for ADUs
under 750 square feet.
And my understanding is in Walnut Creek,
there is no inclusionary requirement imposed on ADUs.
Is that correct?
And so the way I read the staff report was the Planning
Commission was recommending there also
be no inclusionary fees imposed on SB9 units
as long as they comply with the floor area limits
of ADUs, but our ordinance is saying there's no floor area
limits for SB9 units unless we don't comply with the,
I'm just trying to, I'm trying to understand,
I think it should be clear what the rule is,
because otherwise, if I'm being told I have to pay a big fee
on a unit, I'm going to call it one thing versus another,
or apply for one thing versus another,
and I know of at least one instance,
and I think it's significant that we've only had
three ADU applications, only one go forward,
and during that same period of time, we've had 45.
I think.
Sorry, yes, thank you.
That's what I meant, what she said.
So I'll let you answer my question now.
Can you repeat the question?
So I was just, I'm curious what the planning commission
recommendation was on the inclusionary fee
for SB9 units.
So the recommendation was to not require an inclusionary housing
in lieu fee for SB9 units that comply with the ADU size limit,
but to continue to require the parkland dedication and traffic
impact fees.
Under the theory that kind of those smaller ADU units
affordable by design and therefore they shouldn't be paying an inclusionary fee.
So if I called it, whatever I called it, if I called it an SB 9 unit, I would, to
avoid an inclusionary fee, I'd have, I would be limited to the size limits
under the ADU code. Exactly. So even though you could go up to, say you had a
20,000 square foot lie, you go up to 1,400 square feet, you wouldn't be exempt
from the inclusionary housing and lieu fee
unless you kept your unit to under 1,000 square feet
or whatever ADU size limit applied to your lot.
It's treating SB9 units that are the same size
as ADU units in the same manner,
but having SB9 units that are larger than the AD units
pay the inclusionary fee.
Okay, let me try this and make sure.
I think I'm really close.
So if you came in and you had three quarters of an acre
and you're gonna do an SB9 lot split
and you're gonna build a 4,500 square foot house on one
and you have the existing house on the other,
they live with all the setbacks and everything like that,
you're going to owe the inclusionary housing fee
on that new 4,500 square foot SB9 unit.
Yes.
Okay.
Yeah.
Except you, oh yeah, okay, got it.
So it's really not that they're complying
with the ADU ordinance is that the size is consistent
with the smaller sizes of ADUs.
Yes.
We need to go check the language in the ordinance
to make sure that it's, it says that.
The language in the ordinance is very clear.
There's a table that identifies which inclusionary housing.
Can you tell us the page?
Yeah, if you look at page 22 of the ordinance,
end of section 14 at subsection C and you can see that that kind of really
illustrates the the the situation where inclusionary housing elements housing
does not apply to SB 9 units that do not exceed the following four areas so
meaning they does apply if you exceed those they would still be subject to
parking and no traffic and traffic and park correct and eight ADUs would not
are not subject to any development impact fees per state law yeah that's my
clear lies on the phone right now Claire can you answer that question for
councilmember Francois she elevated Susan or sung you can answer I believe
the answer is yes ma'am but I just want to check I believe there's a I believe
There's a size limit for that to apply.
So if the ADU is less than, I think it's 750 square feet,
then the feet wouldn't apply,
but if it is, then it would apply.
Okay, thanks Claire.
And then I think the last,
I know that the mayor had some good questions.
I'm gonna leave for her to answer or ask an answer maybe.
There was a public comment on garage conversions,
Essentially saying that if we're requiring the garage door to remain to respect the look and feel kind of the single-family neighborhoods
How would they how would someone accommodate, you know energy efficiency and things like that?
Is that are we concerned about that or is that something that?
You could yeah, I'm not really sure. I don't know when the other staff can speak to energy efficiency
building code
issues and how that interacts with
The design requirements that we're asking for I think that question that was posed by the comment is
Whether or not there could be essentially an interior construction
So from the outside it looks the facade looks like a garage door
But whether or not you could essentially create an interior wall that would provide the weather
You know the weatherproofing that's necessary. I think that's a building question
I don't know if some of you can answer that or not be essentially creating a wall with maybe a door
On the inside of the garage in on the inside of the garage door. That's something we would have to check in with
the building chief building official
and that's something that the council as
The council will have the objective design standards and to the extent that that would have any impact on it as the council considers objective design
Standards in the future. You could consider some language that would address that issue
Okay another baby question and you probably answered it and I was busy watching the crisis over here
When we're talking about the garage doors
Are we talking about garage doors that are attached to the house?
like I mean, I don't think of the garage as being anything but a
Submit know that the garage door discussion we're having right now
One of the comment letters that the council received was talking about the rolling garage door
You know an opening garage or that you actually move a vehicle in and out of and and the assumption in this is that you're
converting the garage to
To an ADU or to
I got that part, but is the garage that
There are garages that are down the driveway at the end of the lot and then there are garages that are a part of the
structure of the original house
Are both of those garages for this purposes?
I'm looking at the ordinance right now and it just it it just refers to an existing garage
doesn't differentiate but between
attached
Garages and detached garages. Okay. Thank you. So that all garages if a car could go in it. It's a possibility
That that is yes, that's correct. Okay, oftentimes. I think the thought was that oftentimes
At least as I've seen them
It's more likely that detached garages are on the property line than attached garages
That's not always the case, but you commonly see detached garages that are built right to the property line
Councilmember darling. Oh, no
Okay, ask away
So I was looking at I like the idea of prioritizing
The waivers to get to the minimum 850, but I wanted to understand
So for each one of these
You would have to look at it and see if that
precludes an 850
Square foot unit and so before we would get to allowing 850 square foot unit in the front setback
Somebody would have had gone through every single one of these they would have had to rip out their oak trees. They would have had to
Put their units closer together they would have had to do all that
but you could still end up with something in the front yard setback I
mean if they yeah if they went through all of these other standards and by
waving those standards they still could not achieve an SB 9 unit then that would
be the place where yeah they would have to if they had to wave the front setback
and here we're talking about an SB 9 unit not necessarily an ADU. Yes. Are ADUs
allowed in the front yard setbacks? Mm-hmm. Yes, under the current ADU law they
are allowed in the front yard setback. And that's a state requirement or? That is a state
requirement. Okay, and so if somebody comes in and wants to do an SB 9 lot
the SB9 unit would not be able to be in the front yard setback unless they had
gone through all this but if they did an SB9 lot split and then came in with an
80 an additional you know remembering that you could split your lot two units
in the front two units in the second part they could put their ADU there's
nothing to preclude them putting their ADU in the front yard. No ADU's lot split
Right. No, well in the in the ordinances before you tonight we can talk about that
It does allow for a to use even on a lot split. And so the council should if the council wants to have a conversation
So yes, it is possible that if you were talking about the ADU unit as opposed to an SB 9 unit
But it could ultimately end up in the front yard setback
Okay
That's interesting and and so I know there are some houses mine included that have two front yard setbacks because they're on the corner
and so the same thing would apply there you'd have to go through all of this
yeah it looks like we have corners we call that the corner side set back looks
like we have that as number 11 yeah okay and then so on an existing structure
say this is where you get to those detached garages that sit on the lot line
It's an existing structure they come in to do an SB 9 lot split and they are going to
convert that garage into a housing unit under SB 9 does that become something that because
it's an existing unit are they you know we were different we're trying to push people
into using the regular setbacks but if they have a non-conforming use that's in the setback
already. How do we deal with that? So the city doesn't have a lot of wiggle room
on this because in under SB 9 if there's an existing structure that's
converted to a two-unit project or SB 9 unit or a building that's built to the
same dimensions and in the same location then zero setback is required so yes
somebody could convert an existing detached garage that's on the property
line or they could even say their garage is falling down and tear it down
rebuild it as long as that what they put up they could put it back on the on the
property line as long as it's not taller or larger than what was there but if they
bigger. Exactly. Then they would have to meet the SB 9 setbacks. Okay. And the last
question is what does the fire district require? If we're defaulting to the fire
district requirement, what do they require? I believe it's 14 feet. I think
it's in the staff report. I think it's normally 14 feet. And I guess the second
part of that question is. Okay, typically requires 16 feet for fire access. And then I know with the
multifamily housing if it gets beyond a certain length then that has to be bigger. Is that the
idea that that just applies whatever they require is what we require. Exactly. Yeah, whatever the
fire district requires is what we would require. Okay, thanks guys. I just want to let the council
That was a recommendation by the Plan Commission and if the council chooses to have a yeah
I just want to make sure I understood what the planning issues right away. It's like well if we defer to them
What do they want so all right? Thanks, and thank you for helping with a very confusing little puzzle here
Councilmember Wilk do you have any questions?
It's more of just a holistic question on this and and we are
Just so I'm completely clear on this we're doing this so that we don't have to default to the
The state expansive ways that this is actually allows us a little bit more control and that's why we're taking this if we
Didn't take any action. It would revert to the
More allowances that that's been on offers. Is that correct? That's right
That's it. For example, we wouldn't limit floor area at all
We wouldn't limit
height
except for you know, it would have to comply with a district height regulations, but
We wouldn't have our you know, the design requirements like the treatment of garage doors or
The sill height for windows and the hillside protection
Or the tree protection. It would just default to the standards under state law
and yeah, like as I
Pointed out it is part of the housing element implementation program to adopt it like to codify SB 9
Thank you
Mayor Pro Tem. Do you have any additional questions? Yeah, there probably is baby baby level as
Don't demean yourself. Okay. Well, I
Don't need my glasses
When we're talking about two units
So I can understand this do we always assume that the house that's already built is the first one and the standard that then
impacts the new unit coming in
If that makes it it does make sense. Yeah, and yeah, it makes a lot of sense
Well
Not necessarily, so I mean under theoretically under SB 9 if you had a vacant lot
You could develop a duplex on it
and the duplex would be subject to all these standards it would be subject to you know, you would have to meet your your setbacks and
your height limits and and
It would meet the floor area requirements that we talked about, the height limit requirements
that we talked about.
My understanding is that there aren't a lot of vacant lots remaining, but staff may be
able to confirm that.
I'm not certain about the number of vacant lots, but in terms of having an existing house
and then doing a lot split, there is that requirement
to record the intention to live in the primary unit.
Again, the state was very loose with,
and they allowed the word intention,
so they can sign it and tend to do something,
and then they may be able to change their mind.
The state wasn't very specific on having them
to be required to stay in their house for three years.
It was the intention to stay in the house for three years.
Okay, that has nothing to do with my question,
but it is, I remember reading that.
It's when we're talking about the neighborhood standard
and that sort of thing, is it supposed
to blend in with the same architecture
of the original house that's on the property
or can they go modern or?
So under the existing interim ordinance,
they were supposed to match or be compatible.
And under the proposed ordinance, they the units can look different can be different architectural styles.
OK. They are subject to the objective design standards and the design standards, but they can look different.
They don't have to. They don't have to be compatible.
But if you if you sorry, I'm sorry, let me finish that unless there are duplex.
Right. So if there are duplex, they have to be compatible.
if you build, if you have the existing house and you build an SB9 dwelling,
they don't have to be compatible.
But if you build that SB9 and you add an ADU,
the SB9 and the ADU have to be compatible.
Defer to some of that.
I believe our existing ADU ordinance requires compatible.
I think it does.
That is correct today.
In terms of just individual units, so if there's a house in the front and a house in the back,
just the way our designer view standards work, there's actually a policy
that says that they shouldn't be the same necessarily in terms of individual houses.
So it's really up to the council decide for SB 9 on which direction you want to go. You can either go the
Design review route where houses are to be are meant to look different or you can go the ADU route where there's
compatibility between the main house and then the ADU
It whichever direction the council goes if they want to have architectural compatibility it would have to be done by objective design standards
Thank you
Okay, is there anything that gives I mean a duplex is attached to
Attached separate but they're together but a wall separates them so they aren't cross cross
pollinating and
having conversations with each other
is there any rule about the distance between the original house and the
Second house is that all?
Considered or can they build them?
It's just defaults to the zoning district standards which in most cases are five it requires five feet of separation between buildings
And the fire department doesn't have an opinion on this
No, it's that's so like on the same lot
Five feet is what's required on adjacent lots. There are fire separation standards
Yeah, so so the five feet is really set by the residential building code
So anything under five feet you have to have fire rating fire rating walls and then fire rated eaves
So that's I think that's where that five-foot separation comes from that is only applied for buildings on the same lot
So if there's a house in an adu they need to be five feet apart
the complication comes in is when there's like a
Garage that's on the adjacent property line and then you're putting an SB unit. That's four feet away from that property line
Then you have to make sure that the walls and the eaves are fire rated
And then there's also like a limitation in terms of the opening on that wall per the residential building code
Okay, so safety is covered. Can I can I ask that because I have a question on that point
Sure. I need the rest
Because I was struck by that
You know this order here, which is kind of interesting on mailboxes first
And but the the distance between buildings being number three that seems like a real important one
So if we were to waive that standard to get to 800 square foot
Units on a lot would we we would require them to do fire rating wall fire rated walls
Yes, they would still have to meet building code
Okay
Can I clarify further those are number three is distance between
between buildings on the same lot on the same lot not
Adjacent bill lots. Okay. Thank you. I think this is the last of my
questions
Can the new building that supposing we have an original dwelling unit that's pretty sparse. It's small it's a
1,000 feet can the new unit be bigger than the original unit?
Yes, it can. Okay, as long as it meets the
floor area
Limits that we're proposing. Okay. Thank you
You'll be you'll be happy to know I have no more questions
They're great questions
So I have a few questions. Thank you and thank you for sending me very detailed answers on my questions that I
Whipped off from notes yet early yesterday morning, and I realized a couple of my questions actually didn't make sense
so I apologize for that the
Trying to get in my head this lot area issue if I live I'm gonna say if I live in Cindy darlings house
Which I think isn't couldn't you it's a conforming
All of your setback standards are good to go
She just goes by her max she has no max size she meets all the setbacks and lot coverage
There is no looking it up on a table. So the sliding scale and the tables are for my lot where I have a non-conforming lot
so I could look up our ten all day long, but my
Setbacks and all of that have already we've already had variances. So we would have to go through this
If figuring out exactly the size of the lot to figure out where we are on the table
Yeah, you would need to to know your lot saw your lot area which
That you you know
Someone has a record close to that. I mean that's what surveying is for we've had to do it before yeah
and
Wait in usually the county assessor has that but but
Yeah, it's less dependent on whether your lot is currently conforming and more dependent
on where that new, either the new structure or the, I guess, converted structure is, that
is accommodating the SB9 unit is placed and whether it's meeting your standard setbacks
or whether it's taking advantage of the reduced setback of only four feet the SB9 allows.
Does that help?
Let me try this.
My lot is big enough that if I wanted to put something in the back that used the SB9 setbacks,
I could build up to 1,200 square feet because of the size of my lot.
but my neighbor over the back fence has a much bigger lot,
and so they could build a 1,400 square foot
if they were just using the SB9 setbacks,
not the ones for the zoning for our neighborhood.
They have a bigger lot.
If they're just using SB9 setbacks,
they could build a slightly bigger unit.
We have no size limit on,
if you meet the setback and a lot coverage standards,
there are no size.
But the size limits are for you're using SB 9 exactly
Yeah, not if you don't have the lot coverage
You're somehow you don't have the required lot coverage or yeah, if they are back if they are
Doing a four-foot side yard setback or something
I mean, I think the mayor raises a good point with the non-conforming lot. So it's not clear to this lay and use attorney
What lot coverage percentage would apply because let's say her lot is sewn are 15
Which would be a 25 percent lot coverage, but she only has a 10,000 square foot lot. I have a lot that was cut in half
Before they built the houses on it, you know subdivided it and then decided they wanted two lots rather than one
1947
So the is the question what with the 20 still apply even though she's got a non-conforming lot it does
Okay, I'm gonna move on from that because I'm not building an SB 9 unit. There is no room in the end
But I will ask about variances which I did ask in writing earlier, this is a ministerial process, but what if
The homeowner needs a variance as well
order to make everything fit and work for their primary unit do they just go
through the normal variance process they would unless they could make it fit
with the forfeit setbacks okay the have we done any analysis of capacity and I
know that was asked at the Planning Commission because I thought oh that was
my question too. In terms of when you look at the the homes built in the 1960s,
late 1950s, 1970s they're very regular subdivisions. The likely they're sitting
in the center of the lot. They don't have a lot of backyard. We don't have a lot of
Kevin's home probably doesn't have a lot of room. Mine doesn't. You know at best
you could get a small adu maybe if you were lucky. How many lots do we think? Do
we have any and it's if we don't know we don't know. I don't think we know at the
moment it to look at every single lot would take quite a bit of work. What we
could do potentially is kind of do like a scan. I don't think it's worth the time.
I was just it was a curiosity. I suspect most it's the streets that are even older
think Lancaster. There are little houses from 1920 sitting on huge lots and
they're very ripe for something like this because of the capacity the
potential of not having to go through the subdivision process to get two homes.
So Mayor I can say quite definitively we have not done that analysis because that
would have taken quite a bit of consultant time and effort and resource.
to windshields. Are HOAs or CC&Rs going to get in the way of this and a state law basically
say those are out of the way? I believe, Claire, you can add to this too if you know more of
a detail in terms of the answer. The state law preempts and so I don't believe that the
HOAs are going to stop, HOA restrictions are going to stop these types of
developments from happening. And they're also, I mean, they're, they're, they're
obviously some single-family neighborhoods that have HOAs as well too,
but, but their CC&Rs and HOAs are more prevalent in multi-family. We have a lot
of them. Red Gear Estates, Red Gear Meta, I mean, we can just... The entire city of
Irvine is in an age, is in one form of HOA or another. And they got an award for doing something.
in each community so. Yeah our neighborhood is a HOA and we were told when the subject came up about
ADUs that thank you for your input but you've been precluded by state law. Right I mean I've
had to say that to other neighborhoods as well. Mayor if I may. Claire are you familiar with
whether HCD has issued an opinion on on that issue or not? I'm recalling that they don't.
I'm not recalling any recently, but I believe they are separate
statues that require HOAs to basically their rules can't impact these kinds of developments.
It's not a part of estimated by believe that's why HOAs wouldn't be in the way of these projects.
Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.
The last question is related to the sequence of waivers.
So you can go down the list and you're going in a sequence.
OK, move your mailbox.
But you're going to find the one that works.
Do you have to give them all the other waivers or do you just only?
In other words, if it doesn't work to take out a tree in the backyard
and it doesn't work to do this in the backyard and doesn't do
work to do this in the backyard, therefore it's got to go in the front yard.
You won't let them do all the things in the backyard.
No, it's only to
if they need the waiver in order to,
because otherwise it would, the language in the state laws,
physically preclude the construction.
Okay, so we're not going to say,
oh yeah, go ahead and do all these things too.
Yeah, it's not like a freebie.
They do.
I would just say that the way that it's worded though,
and remember, it's only coming into play
if you're physically precluded
from otherwise creating an 800 or 900 square foot unit,
but you do look at them in order.
And so you try to address the problem in the order
that they're listed on the list.
And at whatever point you get to the point
where they've been corrected, you stop.
Right, but you don't want to do six of them
if the first five don't make a difference.
Yeah, conceivably that's true, but then you also
you know to the extent that the first five do part of them you would be not reducing it
before you have to reduce you know six seven eight nine and ten no i understand
but i also okay thank you any other questions before we open for public comment
comment not questions no all right we will now open this public hearing for
Comments from the public is anyone in the council chamber wish to make comments on this item?
Is there anyone?
Kevin Burke would like to speak he has his hand raised come on in
Good evening. Thanks very much to staff for the presentation. I just want to say thanks very much to the planning Commission as well
I think both did a really good job on the ordinance and
I'd support it. I think it's really great
As written, it's gonna make it substantially more likely that for example, we added a second unit to our property
I just want to think about like affordability
I mean the most likely occupant would be my sister-in-law's family
Who moved to an area of California about 10 years ago?
That has much more affordable homes in this area. So if you think they're moving back here, that's gonna free up a unit there
That's much more affordable
And also I think to some of the comments about
Some of the smaller units you know six thousand eight thousand ten thousand square feet and not being enough room to fit a second unit
I think the trend that you're seeing is people sort of buying more run-down houses and then building a giant house for one family and
You know, that's that's certainly something you can do but a lot of those houses are not very affordable
If you give people the option to tear down a run-down house and build a duplex instead
You might get a bit more affordability in addition to more impact fees and more property tax revenue and all that good stuff
So thanks very much and have a good night. Thank you. I don't see any others joining us virtually
The anyone else back in the council chamber. I don't see anyone so we will close
Public comment and the public hearing on this bring it back to council in the last two minutes. Have you thought of any other questions?
Madam Mayor, I do have one one comment that I want to make with the errata that have been provided to the council tonight
So the council received actually an errata sheet and an errata sheet number two
Which are redline changes to sections of the ordinance and errata sheet the first one which impacts
section ten dash one fourteen. Oh five and ten dash two three fifteen. Oh five
Are just corrections based on questions that we had received and we think address the issues that were raised in those questions
The errata sheet number two, which is a single sheet of paper that everybody has on the dais before them
It's available to the public. It does two things one. It just corrects a
An issue where some of the ordinance language has referred to a planning director position
Which doesn't exist in the city anymore. And so we're correcting that and then the second one relates to
The density for 80 use and as the council will recall
sp9
Does not require that you allow 80 use at all on lot splits
And so you have one house and you split the lot and then you end up with four units the existing house plus a new
SB 9 plus 2 SB 2 new SB 9 units
the wording in the
Ordinance that was in the packet this evening
allowed the use of or allowed the possibility of accessory dwelling units even on the lot split
version and so
we looked at that and thought that may have an unintended consequence if you do that because if you if you allow the two SB 9
units and then an accessory and a J to you and
Potentially even the what's referred to kind of a conversion unit
You could potentially end up with a situation where you had many units
that were allowed, some that are called SB9, some that are called accessory dwelling units.
And so that was a concern, so we looked at the language a bit and we came up with the
alternative language that's in section 10-2, 1505 on density.
And this is density where you have an urban lot split, so an SB9 lot split.
And we just made it clear that if there is going to be an ADU allowed, that there's just
one ADU allowed, as a part of the urban lot split,
so that you're not potentially unintentionally ending up
with many more units on an SB9 lot split than you think.
So let me make sure I've got that.
So if we do an SB9 lot split,
you have the existing unit, which can have an ADU,
and then you have the SB9, the new lot,
which you can put a unit on, and an ADU,
or is it just one ADU for the two lots?
No, so let me, so state law says
that if you do a lot split,
you don't have to allow any ADUs,
even though ADUs are otherwise allowed under California law,
which leaves you with a net result of four units.
Because you've got the existing unit
plus one SB9 unit on one lot
and two new SB9 units on the second lot,
if you will, the newly created lot, if you will.
So, but state law doesn't say
that you can't also allow ADUs.
But that's voluntary.
You're not obligated to do that.
And the ordinance that the wording of the ordinance
initially could have allowed the potential
that you would do a lot split.
And then you would get an ADU for each
of the newly created lots plus a JADU potentially.
So you would go from four to potentially 10
on a lot split, and when the Planning Commission,
the Planning Commission didn't consider it
in this depth at all, but if you're thinking about
trying to increase housing stock,
and you appreciate the value of ADUs,
it does make some sense, potentially,
it's a policy call for the council,
to potentially allow more than just the four units
that state law allows, but the intent was not
to allow a substantially increased number of units.
And so the language that's before you
would allow on an urban lot split,
the four lots that SB 9 allows, plus one ADU in total.
Not anymore, so it's a total of five
as opposed to state law which requires four.
The council has the option of not allowing any ADUs
on lot splits.
The state law does not require that.
And state law did balance already.
When state law adopted SB 9,
they automatically said you could get two units on each one.
So they've effectively accounted for ADUs,
at least ADUs without JADUs on each one.
And so we wanted the council to be aware of that.
So staff's recommendation is that
if the council wants to have any ADU at all,
that you adopt it as we've amended it
because that would limit the number,
that would limit to one,
one total, the number of 80 use that would be allowed on a lot split.
So a total number of units of five.
Actually, this is six, I think a maximum of two dwellings.
Plus one accessory dwelling unit are permitted per lot.
I just started pulling away all the extra words,
depending on what a lot is.
One accessory.
Yeah. So if the if the council does, because
It should have it should have just stopped with our permitted not per lot.
It's total in total, so we could change that if the council wanted to change that
because it could be argued you're correct.
It could be argued that you've created a lot of conversations
and arguments about the language of this bill.
Well, and again, the council
there's nothing in your housing element was adopted.
It says that you need to allow 80 years on on
SB 9 split lots, and there's nothing in state law that says it.
So it's really a it's a policy call for the city.
You could exclude it completely.
I think we're at the point of running through comments.
But we're going to take a 10 minute break first.
It's been we've been at this for three hours.
And then I'm going to actually talk about with staff about
how we're going to do this so that we're efficient.
Good evening again and welcome back to the Tuesday, October 3rd, 20,
23 regular meeting of the Walnut Creek City Council we are considering
adopting amendments to our to create a permanent
sp9 ordinance and I will turn it to our city attorney to guide us through the
recommendations and
the finalizing of this
Thank You mayor
what what I will be doing is going through the errata sheets first and then turning to the ordinance and the staff report and
I'll be
Identifying where I'm talking about various sections as we go through here
Madam Mayor and council
If the council does have consensus on all of these points
then we can I
can frame a motion for the council to introduce the ordinance and
Then what the council will get back at your next meeting
If you would like is both a clean and a red line of the ordinance
So you see exactly the changes.
And if for any reason the council wanted to further edit it
at that, we would simply have to reintroduce it
at the next meeting and then adopt at the subsequent meeting
as the council is aware, the city is on a timeline
to get this adopted and have it effective before December 19th
because that's when our interim ordinance is extend.
But we do have the flexibility of introducing again
at the next meeting if we wanted to.
if the Council wanted to.
So with that, the first change I would direct the Council's attention to a Rata sheet number
two.
I'm going to go in reverse order here.
And there are two changes on a Rata sheet number two.
Roman numeral two is just the change throughout the draft ordinance that's the changing the
planning manager or planning the planning manager titled the community development director
or their designee.
The second change is the one we talked about
just before the council took a break.
And we appreciate the mayor's comments.
And what we would suggest is that that one be revised
so that in the end of the second line
after the word article,
we would insert our permitted per lot.
And then at the end of that paragraph
where it says our permitted per lot would be struck
and in its place, it would say is permitted
on one of the resulting parcels.
So it's one accessory dwelling unit in total
is permitted on one of the two created parcels.
So that would be that language change.
We think that addresses the, if the,
well somebody pause there and say,
is the council okay with even allowing
any accessory dwelling units on the lot split?
then secondly if so is the addition of one acceptable to the council so I'm
going to say is everyone in agreement with robin numeral two you got agreement
and in terms of item G density the recommendation is basically for a maximum
of five across the two or correct split lots is that okay I've got a yes yes
yes yes yes you got it move to the next all right so the next is the
The first errata sheet and these are just the changes to sections 10-1-1405 and 10-2-0.3-1505
and these are changes that were made in response to questions that staff received from the
council so they're not, they're clarifying changes in my view, they're not.
Any questions?
Everybody good?
Yeah.
Moving on.
So now if we can turn to Mayor, I'm going to start by directing everyone's attention
to the staff report because there is a nice listing on page seven of the recommendations
by topics and we'll try it that way.
If we need to go to the ordinance, the council can let us know.
So the first one is the floor area, so under the heading of recommendations on page seven
There is a discussion of floor area.
This is increasing the allowable floor area from 800 square feet to the sliding scale
for area.
So you recall this is if you're in compliance with setbacks and lot coverage, then you get
no floor area max.
But if you are not and you're doing the four foot setbacks, then you have the sliding scale
that is set forth in the ordinance at page 17 of the ordinance.
So this is going from 850 square foot units up to 1,400,
depending on the size, the net lot size.
So the question.
So really, it's page.
What I see as a challenge with the staff report
is it only refers to the non-compliant lot coverage
and setbacks.
And it doesn't have the phrase that's in the ordinance that
shows the kind of the either or.
So page 17, if you comply with the setback and lock coverage
regs, then any size goes.
That's correct.
And then all other aspects, nine projects are?
Sliding scale.
Are sliding scale.
So it's the way it's worded right now.
It's the bottom of page 17.
Correct.
Any questions?
We're good.
We're good.
Good, good, good.
Sold.
So the next issue is building heights,
and it increases the allowable building
heights of SB9 units from 16 feet to whatever
is allowed in the zoning.
Again, as long as they are meeting standard setbacks
and lot coverage requirements for the zoning district.
Otherwise, they stay at 16 foot.
Yes.
Yep.
Yes.
The next item is parking.
So it continues to require one parking space per SB9 unit,
but allows it to be uncovered.
Yes.
Yeah.
Yes.
The next one is for design standards.
It maintains the design standards of the interim
ordinance, but updates them with a reference to the end.
Not only updates them, but would apply the newly,
the to be adopted objective design standards
once they're adopted.
And I think it also has architectural compatibility
for duplexes if I met if I made out a mayor Claire I'm remembering that
correctly right it does have architectural compatibility for duplexes
right thank you is is that really means it does maintaining the design standards
of the interim ordinance so because I thought the interim ordinance required
architectural compatibility for SB 9 units yeah Claire we've modified that
though Claire haven't we in the ordinance so it's not maintaining them
their entirety thank you to me that's worth a discussion of you know if we
have should there be some congregate congruity between the ADU and SB 9 so
I'll offer the point of view I wasn't I was thinking we should have can be
congruent or compatible but then I thought of certain roadways and you're
in my neighborhood, that have 1920s summer homes that if you, they could
literally build another house on that property and if we wrote architectural
compatibility they'd be having to design the architecture to align with
hundred-year-old homes that don't look very good at all. I mean isn't that true
for ADUs? But ADUs I think is because it's on property. I can see the
difference. The challenge I've struggled with on this one there's been a couple
of the houses that have gone into our neighborhood that have adopted a very
modern style and because they're on individual lots many in the county not
in the city they're doing that. You know which one's I'm talking about and I am
worried as we get into the neighborhood's like mine where the houses have a
certain amount of congruity if we get a ultra-modern one going in and on an SP9
lot split. Is there a way for us to still are is there language that would
reflect that in existing neighborhoods there is a we're gonna get no I checked
it real quick though no it's interesting because in subdivisions they don't all
look the same but they have a same architectural style even though they
might have different citing etc is there a way to say it without making it say it
needs to look exactly like the existing house.
Actually, what is, what do, because we
have that issue addressed on the ADUs themselves.
I think the ADU ordinance refers to compatibility
with the existing home.
Can we say architectural compatibility
with the existing neighborhood, or is that
going to get us sideways with?
It's pretty subjective, then, and that's the intent here
is not to have this be as subjective.
I do think, so first off, the ordinance
is going to make any SB9 units comply
with objective design standards,
and we are gonna have them sooner rather than later,
so it may be a risk factor for four to six months,
not forever.
It doesn't mean that people are-
I thought you were gonna say four to six weeks.
four to six months, not forever.
And so, I think that might address the long-term problem
because you can consider that when you're adopting
the objective design standards.
On the shorter term though, the architectural compatibility
as it's drafted right now really only applies to
when the SB9 unit is located in the same building,
so a duplex, or when you're doing a garage conversion
and the garage version is associated with the main house.
And so, if the council were concerned about
the possibility that someone might come in
and put in SB9 units that are modern in a neighborhood
where it's not modern, that could happen
under the wording of the ordinance as it is right now.
I think if you're gonna try to try,
if you're gonna try to tie something on a short-term basis
so that you don't get this unintended consequence,
You may want to just say that in the ordinance
that would be introduced that you maintain
just an architectural compatibility standard
with the main house for the lot that the main house is on.
Maybe not the, if you do a lot split,
maybe not the second lots.
And that you, and that you,
when you adopt the objective design standards,
then you come back and you just amend this portion
of the SB 9 ordinance.
So you may not, because you may want to consider this
in the broader context of the overall
objective design standards, if you want to modify it.
Otherwise, as it's presented right now,
it's limited to duplexes in the garage converter.
I mean, that was helpful to you.
So on page 10, when I was talking about design standards,
and it's saying we're coming up
with the objective design standards,
but they'll include things like architectural compatibility.
And that seems to really get at,
I think, what we're talking about.
The SB9 dwelling units must match the building form,
exterior side and trim roof form and materials and window placement type of the pre SB 9 primary dwelling
That's that's what's envisioned to be in the objective design standards that will be coming forward
And that SB 9 units will have to comply with
They will have to comply with it. I can't speak to what's in vision to it. I have to defer to song or to Erica
So if I may I think that you know whenever we were writing this we were trying to get
similar to whenever the Planning Commission was talking about it,
they were referring back to our design guidelines that went from 1996 or something
and which asked for if this were to not be an SB 9 lot split,
but if the the property were to be subdivided,
then the design guidance there states that the two adjacent homes should not be
identical, right? Okay. And I apologize. It does say the interim ordinance
includes these objective design standards and then lists architectural
compatibility. So my vote would be to incorporate that into the permanent SB
9 ordinance. I could support that. And that's for council member, that's for all
SB 9 units, even if there's a lot split. So the two that if you create a new lot
or is it just the just for the unit that's on the lot or the primary? The way
it's worded it says the pre SB 9 primary dwelling unit so not wasn't it I wasn't
intending to apply to a lot split situation so you're proposing to take
the interim language that's on page 10 of the staff report and add it to the
permanent ordinance on page 20 is that what I'm getting I know it's page 10 of
staff report. It's the first bullet point right? Yeah yeah yeah we can
include that in. Yeah another person wants to. Yes.
On engine access. Yeah okay so we're gonna so I'm gonna suggest that we would
add that so the ordinance right now in where it's talking about objective
design standards on page 20. Thank you. Section 1a says all SB 9 units shall
comply with the City of Walnut Creek's objective design standards maintained by
the Community Development Department period then I would say in addition SB 9
dwelling units much met must match the building form exterior siding tree roof
form and materials and window placement type of the pre SB 9 primary dwelling on
on the lot that contains the pre-SB-9 primary dwelling.
Can we change the must to should,
if I'm thinking about those instances
where the SB-9 unit will be so much better looking
than the existing,
would we really wanna preclude making a better?
Mayor Silva, so as part of the SB-9 process,
it needs to be completely ministerial.
And so, we have to make a decision
whether it's going to, of shells, not shells.
Yeah, I mean, I'll present that a little bit differently.
If you put should, it's not mandatory.
So, the challenge is that the community development
directors designee is just gonna make a call
on one of those two issues.
Given the limited number of SB9 applications
that you've received so far,
it might be better to stay with must.
And then when we adopt the objective design standards,
if we need to soften it, we can soften it then.
I think, I mean, you're just not getting
that many applications right now, so.
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay.
The next, Councilman Prenshaw, is that,
does that cover this item for you?
Okay. Thank you.
So the next item is the urban lot splits.
and that's instead of requiring
that flag lots have a minimum panhandle width of 24 feet,
default to the requirements
of the Contra Costa Fire Protection District,
also allow access via an easement, so that's the-
Can you reference the page that you're on
and whichever document?
I'm going to.
Claire, you might need to help me out here on that one.
This is page-
It's page 12.
Page 12 of the ordinance, Claire.
Oh, sorry, I have the staff report.
Okay.
Thank you.
looking at the summary list it's on page 7 of the staff report that's what I'm
working off of but yeah it's page 12 of the staff report for the more detailed
discussion. I'm fine with this one. I am too. Thumbs up. Good. Okay. I'm sorry mayor we're okay to go
ahead just check okay thank you. Exceptions due to physical
preclusion. So this is the priority list that is identified on page 13 of the
staff report and page 20 I believe of the ordinance. 21 of the ordinance. Thank
you. Again this is the priority order that you try to address the
fact that you otherwise cannot physically build the minimum sized SB 9
I personally feel like this is getting too, I'm going to like this, that is getting too granular,
that I think that there should be some, because logically I'm like, I don't follow the logic,
per se, and I would leave it up to staff to figure out, like I think we're trying to legislate a
little too much when it comes to this. So does that make it not ministerial? Yeah, I agree,
it doesn't it doesn't really make it I agree with councilman Francois it
doesn't really make it not ministerial it this if if if somebody's a designer
though I'm saying I'm gonna ask you to the consultant maybe way out of this
I'm not sure if this is actually like does this help the designer too if you
will because then they know they know the order to do this in like that that to
me might be the benefit of this. Yes it will take them more work because they'll
have to go through each individual item and then do some conceptual sketches in
terms of what can work and what wouldn't work but again part of that list is it
would be upon the applicant to provide evidence to staff that they need this
particular waiver and whatever whatever the order is set up if that makes sense.
I like it because of the finding a way to not have people default to put in
them in the front yards. I think give them a burden to show that nothing else
will work and in many of the lots you know there isn't going to be a
hillside performance standard there probably aren't tree preservation some
of these will be able to be quickly discounted but I like the idea that you
You have to work to get to the point where you're putting something in your front yard.
That's a good point.
I don't know where mailbox is or the second story window sill height.
How does that help you get an 800 square foot dwelling?
Did this come from another ordinance or where did this?
Lafayette.
I believe it came from Lafayette, but part of the challenges for the mailbox location
is the location of the driveway or the easement.
So if that's going to preclude it,
then we would have to waive that.
And those are some of the easier ones to waive.
Part of it is placing the priority.
One of the things that I noticed when
I was at Atherton with the urban lot splits
is they wanted to waive the trees.
And that was the first thing that they wanted to waive.
So this sets up an order.
But again, it's really up to the applicant
provide evidence that they need, you know, this in this particular order.
It allows for consistency in the analysis.
And it's, it's, you know, you can say mailbox doesn't work.
And in my mind, it was almost by how easy it was to make that adjustment so that and
There wasn't really consistency and ease of compliance.
That pretty much was what the list was supposed to reflect.
I'm OK with it.
OK.
I'll go along with the team on this one.
Are we setting out the recommendations as well
as the planning commission did, or just saying
that we are going with this recommendation?
This was their recommendation.
and I'm fine with it. So mayor the last item on the list is development impact
fees and that's continue to require the payment of the development impact fees
for SB9 units but exempts smaller SB9 units from paying the inclusionary
housing and lieu fee when those smaller units are compatible with the ADU
exception now. I'm comfortable with that, I think it... Okay. Okay, so, Madam Mayor then...
Oh, you got one more. The last one. Type of units, or do we already deal with that?
Type of units on lots divided by an urban lots, but... Oh, it's not on summary, it's in the staff report.
I think we did with that, we did it because it was in the errata. It's on page
14 of the staff report. We did the urban lot splits, was there something else?
Yeah we did the urban lot splits on that one already. That's the number of units
yeah. So Madam Mayor, if I'll pause if the council has any more questions or
alternatively if you'd like me to frame a motion I'd be happy to do that.
Let's frame a motion. So this would be a motion to wave reading and introduce the
The ordinance that is in the Council's packet, as modified by the errata sheet and errata
sheet 2, with the further modification that I read into the record earlier for subsection
10-2.3.15.05 G1, which effectuates that the maximum number of units, including an ADU
a lot split is five to be clear about that and also the modification to the architectural
compatibility language to add the additional sentence that was after the sentence that
said that SB9 units would comply with the objective design standards and it's as I read
it into the record previously.
So moved.
Second.
we have a motion and a second would you please take the roll call vote and thank
you very much to staff thank you Heather it was nice to meet you and also to the
attorney for your help through this process and to Claire lie and we have
one item left on our agenda this evening it's the consent calendar do we have any
member of council we have six items this evening does any member of council wish
to speak to any of those items does any member of the public does any member I
don't see any members of the public here that would wish to speak to this item is
there anyone on zoom that has raised their hand then I will entertain a
motion for the motion I just wanted to make clear for the record I'll let you
make the motion that I was not in attendance at the September 19th
council meeting so I'll be abstaining from approving the minutes of that
meeting even though I'll be voting yes on the rest of it. Okay then I'm going to
make the motion that we approve item number five with the additional
amendment of item A and that's through item F. Second. Madam Mayor, if I may just for the
record that council had an errata to item e as well too with a really minor
change to it so I will include that in the motion we have a motion and a second
for the consent calendar would we have a roll call vote please
Mayor pro tem haskew aye councilmember will aye councilmember darling aye
councilmember france law yes mayor Silva aye motion carries with that this
meeting is adjourned and we will see everyone on October 17th and thank you
for all you guys who stuck here for consent calendar.
If you want to answer questions,
I will think up some to make you feel better about staying.