the owner of serving this year is the mayor of the city and I will call this
meeting to order and ask the clerk to take the role.
Councilmember Darling. Present. Councilmember Francois. Here. Councilmember Wilk.
Here. Mayor Pro Tem Hask. Here. Mayor Silva. Here.
We are running today's meeting under the laws of the state of California and the
California's Brown Act. Under that special
meetings public comment on items not on the agenda
is not part of this meeting today.
Public comment will only be on the items on our agenda.
We have two items on the agenda.
The first is a discussion to provide policy direction
on refinements to the design review process,
and we will take public comment on that item
during the discussion.
The second item on our agenda is a closed session,
which is an opportunity for us to confer
with our real property negotiators regarding the sale,
The potential sale of a piece of property,
we will take public comment prior to going
into closed session on that item.
I would also further remind everyone
that if you wish to speak under public comment
on either item today, I will be calling for cards.
We will have you line up.
We will have up to two minutes per person
or up to 10 minutes for an individual representing a group.
If you are representing at a group,
It is under the presumption that no members of the group
will be speaking, that that person will be speaking
on your behalf.
So the first item is a consideration of policy direction
on the refinements to the design review process.
I will be turning to staff to introduce the item.
Good morning.
Good morning, hello, mayor, council members,
members of the community.
I'm Erika Vandenbrand and I'm the community development
director here at the city of Walnut Creek.
start the presentation. Maybe. There we go. So as council may recall, on May 16, you
had directed staff to look at the city's design review process. And the reasons
for that were that there are there have been changes in the state housing
legislation that have an increased focus on objective design standards and so
essentially eliminating the ability for discretionary review for a large number
housing project types. In addition there had formerly been feedback from the
development community both through the objective design standards outreach
process as well as the previous vision blueprint permit and process
streamlining evaluation that in turn asked us you had asked us to look into
that to try and find ways to streamline the processes including for design
review. In addition, because of all those things, Council, as one of your priorities
for the economic development, had asked us to also look at ways to deal with
permit streamlining. Lastly, at the July 18th Council meeting this past summer,
whenever we had initially brought this item forward to you, you said that first
changes to the design review process were indeed desired and that you were
looking into that. And then other options that we had presented then, the DRC as an
advisory body was of interest. And lastly, for us to come back to council with a proposal.
So at that point, you had not made any specific, you know, direction in terms of this, but
you did ask us to come back with a proposal. So just by way of background, there's quite
A lot of state housing legislation that emphasizes the use of objective design standards as the
sole and only way in which housing related projects can be evaluated.
In addition to these that are up here, there is also recent state legislation that was
just recently signed into law by the governor that furthers this.
In addition, that in terms of state laws, there is also a maximum number of meetings
and hearings which these projects can be subject to.
And then for both housing and for non-residential projects, there are constrained review timelines
and then there's a focus on streamlined processes.
So all these together point to and underscore the need to take a look at our various processes.
Lastly with regard to feedback, as I mentioned earlier, there is quite a bit of concern in
terms of the development timelines, costs, uncertainty, et cetera.
And then in particular, the need for the city has a process currently that requires having
to go back to DRC for a final approval, app for final design approval for certain things
after they've already received entitlements
by the Planning Commission.
And so these have very, it takes additional time
as well as has caused other impacts
for various housing projects.
Lastly, the type of development
that we're getting through,
that we're coming through the pipeline
is more of a mixed use type.
So it's mixed residential and commercial
which blends the various types of projects.
So given that, we tried to take into account data also.
And so we went back and looked at the past five years
of data to be able to give you some information
to do database decision making.
So when we go back and we looked at the different projects,
what we identified was that 70% of all the projects
for residential coming through
were actually done at the staff level.
And the reason why is that the DRC had formerly
basically given staff the ability and authority
to deal with these smaller projects.
And so that's this differentiation
between small and large.
In addition, of the remaining 30% of projects,
which is actually 12 for residential,
of those seven of them actually did already involve
the Planning Commission and or City Council
because of the need for additional entitlements,
so maps, et cetera, and at least one of those
was because for design review,
Council had been identified as the deciding body
in an overlay zone.
Looking at the same analysis
for non-residential design review,
again, the majority of projects overall
were done at the staff level, so 71%.
And of those, just under half
were occurred at Broadway Plaza
because they restore front improvements
as they're coming through.
But the remaining 29%, which constitutes 24 projects,
were done with involvement of the Design Review Commission.
And of those, just under half went to the Planning Commission
and our city council for the same reasons
I had noted earlier in terms of entitlements.
So overall, when you look at the number of projects
and where most of the decisions are being made,
Most of them are being made at the staff level already
because they're smaller projects
or that they're projects which have been exempted
from being able to go forward
in terms of planning commission, city council, and DRC.
But in addition, the DRC, I'm sorry,
the planning commission is already seeing
a substantial number of these projects.
Can I stop you there?
Certainly.
So on the left, the 32 projects.
So staff is handling, handled 60 projects,
28 of which were Broadway Plaza,
the other 32 are outside Broadway Plaza.
Correct.
And so the assumption is that the pie chart on the right
is reflective of the 24 projects.
Yes.
Loosely half of which involved the DRC alone
and the other half of which had to involve
the city council and or the planning commission.
Planning Commission and City Council I think there's only one or two. I just
wanted to make sure that you know it's mostly Planning Commission and less so
City Council. Okay thank you for clarifying. And we tried really hard to be
able to portray this with blue and blue but anyway I'll keep on going. So given
that given the feedback we've gotten from Council, given the feedback that we
got from the community, given the numbers and the quantification
that we looked at in the statistics.
We have a recommendation for you.
And so for residential projects, we
recommend continuing the current process
for the objective pathway.
So for these small projects, which have currently already
been delegated to staff through DRC,
to have these small multifamily projects,
as small mixed use projects continue to be delegated
to staff level review,
because that's what's happening already.
One caveat with that is that I mentioned
that there is some recent state legislation
that may change the threshold
for ministerial review potentially,
and we're looking through and evaluating that.
Next.
Large projects.
So for large projects,
These include large single family projects, large multifamily projects, as well as mixed
use projects.
For the most part, these are required to go through objective design review and are not
subject to discretionary review under state law.
However, we did hear you and others in the community at the last council meeting when
you talked about this and wanted to have a design review board or advisory design review
commission input in order to gain additional to be able to gain additional design input
onto the ultimate process and there that the planning commission would be the ultimate
decider with city council appeal.
There really is no other way of going about it other than delegating it to staff to look
through objective design standards because these are objective design standards so that
a design review commission does not have any discretionary ability to look at this.
It also, with regard to planning commission, as had noted earlier, a significant number
of those larger projects are already having to go
to the Planning Commission because of other entitlements.
So that whether it's a conditional use permit,
whether it is a map act, you know,
so a map or something similar to that.
Next, the discretionary path for residential.
So again, we recommend maintaining the current pathway
for the smaller projects for discretionary review
for residential projects, and the reason for this
is that the process is currently working well.
These are the projects that are smaller in nature
that have previously been already delegated
to staff for review, and that from a process standpoint,
both the community and the Design Review Commission
had delegated these things to staff
to expedite those processes.
Do you have any questions here?
Okay.
We didn't have questions on the last one, so let's hold off on that.
Okay.
And then lastly, for the discretionary pathway two for large residential review, again, these
are projects where the developer would choose to opt out of the objective design standards
because they have a different and better idea, so it allows for flexibility.
Or the projects which require other entitlements for example involving a track map.
So I'm going to stop there right now for the residential review unless you want me to continue
onward.
Actually I'm going to see if we have questions about the residential review.
I have one but councilmember Francois.
So if you could just go back to the last maybe the slide before.
Can you, Eric, are there examples that actual project,
well, maybe this isn't a good one,
maybe the large one is better,
of I'm trying to understand why a developer
would opt out of the objective design standards
or even a homeowner,
and if there are examples of projects where that happened?
So we're in the process right now of going through
and doing, you know, updating the objective design standard.
So this is a forward thinking kind of thing.
The reason why they might want to do that is because whenever they look at our objective
design standards, they have found a more cost-effective or more aesthetically desirable method from
their standpoint to be able to achieve the same outcome, and so they would choose to
opt out of desire to opt out of our objective design standards and then do something different.
This process allows for that flexibility.
And then on the next slide, with the large projects, so a project like if Honda, the
development on the Honda site went forward, that would be a large residential project
that would require I think a specific plan amendment and maybe other legislative changes.
So that would put it into this category.
That would put it into this category or a category all of its own as part of a development
agreement.
So let me clarify that the let's take the potential of the Honda site there might be
some discretionary plan amendments but if they trigger state housing law requirements
SB 330 and objective design standards through the use of density bonus law is there a mix
going on?
So this would be a legal question which I would say it depends.
answer I guess as you look at the lawyer. Mayor can you repeat the question I just
want to make sure I understood the full scope of it. Take a project they require
some kind of distress discretionary legislative act but they are also
triggering state state law vis-a-vis density bonus. Is that going to make it
objective and discretionary at the same time? Well if it requires a legislative
act so a general plan amendment or a rezone of some sort then the council has
broader discretion and not as constrained by the objective design standard rules that
apply to developments.
Once the project, however, has a residential zoning to it, so assume two-step process that
the council does in fact rezone it or amend the general plan to allow it to be residential,
then the additional rules we've been talking about would come into play.
So it could be a two-step process through the entitlements?
Correct.
That's correct.
All right.
Thank you.
My question is tell me what the difference is between small and large.
In my mind, small is like one two-story house and large is multifamily, but is there different
recreation?
So we have used the terminology small and large.
So small is essentially indecipherable code for things that the design review commission
has already delegated to staff.
And so there are letters of delegation on file for that.
The nuance, again, is that there are some changes forthcoming, you know, because of
state law that might change that threshold, but essentially in what's over here, and then
the data that we've used is congruent with the current letters of delegation from the
Design Review Commission.
So what do those letters of authority actually say since is it up to four units?
I mean, it seems like it has to be objective definitionally.
It is, and I'm sitting here, I'm trying to recall,
specifically back to the previous council meeting
where we had that information in there for you.
Frantically trying to look it up,
but essentially it's those small four residential,
I think it was four last units, and a single family homes,
and smaller things like that, additions
that didn't require any substantive changes.
And then for non-residential, it was minor storefront
improvements, parking lot kind of things, et cetera.
So that there were, I think these were the body fences,
things like that.
So in general, up to four and five or more.
Yes, council member darling. Okay. Thanks and thanks for taking our very clear direction last time
creating order out of cast so um
I was curious
It sounds like
I only wrote down the non the non-residential numbers, but there were 24 projects
11 of them needed both drc and planning commission and 13 of them only needed drc
if we make these changes
how does that affect projects that used to only go to DRC
and didn't go to Planning Commission?
Are we anticipating that they now go to both?
So that is one of the consequences.
And so it would still have DRB being an advisory body
to Planning Commission on the various projects.
Again, there may be a bifurcation that Council
and our Planning Commission DRC may choose
to change the level of authority,
so that if there are too many projects
that are perceived as going to Planning Commission,
that the staff level review could be changed,
much like the way that the state law
is seeking to change for residential.
So you're right, there is the potential
for more projects to be seen by Planning Commission,
but then there's also the reality
that Planning Commission is already seeing
a substantial number of those projects.
And is there a possibility, you talked about
the possibility of increasing the delegation to staff,
but is, I'm struggling with this,
because I remember when I was on Planning Commission,
every now and then we'd get a project,
I'm like, why are we looking at this?
It seems so small, and those were the kind of things
that I think of as going to just one body
and just go into DRC, if we make them strictly advisory,
is there the possibility that we could allow a new category
that was something that stops at DRC?
Can I clarify?
Can you give me an example?
And was it a land use question versus a design question?
I'm trying to think.
I think it was, this is like in the way back.
I remember cell towers.
ATM machines at banks was one of the things I remember thinking why are we weighing in on this? It seems
Something that
So I and I don't quite know like within the 24 the 13 that were DRC only
I don't know what all those were already entitled mapped
Yeah, that sounds like there were things that were pretty much ready to go except for
So one example might be the Creighton barrel facade
you know redo and so, you know bigger than a bread box smaller than an elephant and so because it was of a greater
degree of
Substance than what had already been delegated to staff that came forward to design review commission
Okay, but under the new rules then
DRC would be advisory but advisory to whom in that instance there's still a design review approval needed for the Creighton barrel, right?
correct and so
Because it does is above the level of the small that had been delegated under this recommendation
It would go to Planning Commission and the only thing that would alter that is if the threshold of what was provided for staff
review were to be changed
So just to make I thank you for asking the question
So we're creating then a hearing before the Planning Commission that didn't exist before
it was a
Hearing or a an action before the Design Review Commission, so you're correct. Yeah, okay. Thank you
If I could just add one point maybe Erica you could
Share some of the data if we have it
For the items that go to Design Review Commission only and stop oftentimes they go twice
They go for the initial input. There may be some
additional work that's done and then they're brought back for a final review and that's one of the things that we'd heard from the
community and I think from your council as well about that second time coming back and even from some of the
Design review commissioners based on the project of trying to eliminate that to get the input up front
So if you're looking at number of hearings from that perspective
Currently it might be two to design review the proposed might be one to design review and one to planning commission
Councilmember Wilk.
Thank you, Erica.
So just to confirm, though, that any recommendations that the designer review, whether it's commission
or board, that they make are not required, that these are just essentially suggestion,
advisory suggestions that don't have to be adhered to?
Because they would be advisory and not a decision-making body that would be accurate.
Now the caveat with that is that whenever under this proposal as it went to Planning
Commission, then Planning Commission would have the ability to adhere to or change or
not adhere to the Design Review Board slash Advisory Commission recommendations.
So if the Planning Commission then adopted that, that would then become required?
Yes.
Okay, and this would end the second go around
to the Design Review Board as well.
Correct, and our Design Review Commission,
because the way it is right now
is that our process has things set up
that entitlements are received from Planning Commission,
and then it circles back around to Design Review Commission
for final design review approval.
And when there's a conflict in that,
That usually ends up in front of council.
And do we find that there's a larger than expected backlog
of projects because there is this back and forth that
occurs, or is it more of the exception?
Unclear.
And the reason why I say it's unclear
is that we've seen this in our housing arena.
And with the changes in state law, it creates issues.
With regard to the commercial development,
it creates a level of uncertainty
because they've already received an entitlement
and they're not quite sure what to do
whenever it circles back
because it could potentially change things
or it could affirm it.
And so it's that level of uncertainty.
Can I go a little further down that?
The way the process is currently designed
with the applicant having the entitlements
and then having to circle back
to design review for final sign off,
There's no guarantee in our process as I recall that it's just one and done.
It could be continually the deep if the Design Review Commission doesn't reach agreement
with the applicant.
They continue to have to refine and refine.
That is indeed a possibility or if they don't make if they make a decision it can be then
appealed to council.
Mayor if I can just add to that that's within the context for those projects that are subject
to the five hearing rule, that would still apply,
even if they're going to design review.
But the five hearing rule sets the limit,
but outside the five hearing rule.
Correct.
For projects that are not subject to the five hearing rule,
it could go on.
For subjects that are subject to the five hearing rule,
the DRC would have to make a decision
at the fifth hearing at the latest.
Not fifth DRC hearing, but the fifth project hearing.
And if I could clarify, I think it's meetings, not hearings.
Pardon me?
It's meetings, not hearings.
So, you know, there's one thing to have multiple hearings,
but another thing to have multiple meetings.
Including meetings with the community.
Correct.
Council Member Darling.
Thanks.
So I'm thinking about the ability to loop back to DRC
and when is it a burden?
I seem to remember with the Walnut Creek Transit Village,
They had gone through Planning Commission
and got all their entitlements,
and then there were some changes in the marketplace,
and they used the DRC process,
and this is just vague recollection.
They used the DRC process to fine-tune the project,
and that seemed, the perception was,
my perception was that they were
regarding that as a benefit.
Do we know if that, my vague memory is correct, and...
Well, since I wasn't here then,
I don't have any memory of it.
I know that what I do know is that even subsequent to that,
that the project has sought to fine tune it due to market
conditions.
And so that there's a subsequent phase that's coming forward.
And in order to set themselves up for a subsequent phase,
there are some additional tweaks that we anticipate bringing
forward to council.
So I think that there's nothing that precludes
doing what you're talking about,
but it doesn't require it either.
Okay, so if we go with this process
and a developer wants to tweak something
that has gone through DRC and Planning Commission,
do they have the ability to just go to DRC
if we make them advisory?
So right now, trying to think,
things are so convoluted with the majority
projects that it's
Most of the things that we're seeing coming forward require some other type of action whether it's some planning commission and or council
Because of the way that the vesting has occurred. Okay. Thank you
Let's allow you to continue
Okay, I have to get my train of thought going again
non-residential design review
so again
For these small projects that include, you know non-residential storefront remodels
non-residential additions, surface parking lots,
restriping, and non-residential landscaping,
or small commercial projects that require an entitlement
from the zoning administrator.
Again, these have been items that have already
been delegated to staff by the Design Review Commission.
We propose continuing that.
Again, discretionary review for a non-residential review
for the large projects.
So these would include new non-residential construction,
new non-residential additions,
substantial commercial storefront changes
such as the Crate and Barrel,
or any non-residential project
that requires an entitlement by the Planning Commission
that they go through this process
where there is a Design Review Board
or a Design Review Commission
that is advisory to Planning Commission.
And again, this is based on the data
that we had looked at over the past five years.
Overall, our recommendation is that to maintain the staff review of both objective and discretionary
small residential and non-residential projects consistent with the delegation currently by
the Design Review Commission and then to change the role of the Design Review Commission to
to advisory instead of decision making.
And the reasons for this is that it provides
the opportunity for design feedback
for large residential projects
subject to objective standards.
It's also congruent with state housing laws.
It eliminates the loopback of the DRC decision making
after planning commission entitlements.
But then it also provides design review feedback
for large residential, non-residential projects,
including mixed-use projects which have the elements of both.
And then there's clarity of process.
As we went through and attempted to evaluate
all the different criteria that council had offered,
as well as the community developers, et cetera,
and with feedback from talking with folks
that are involved in this process and our commissions,
there is no perfect solution.
But this is one that tends to take all the different elements
and the criteria that have been offered,
and to optimize them.
So with that, I'm here for any questions.
Do we have any further questions for staff?
We may have some after public comment.
Thank you very much, Erica.
So we will now turn to the members of the public
who are here for this item.
If you wish to speak to this item, please step forward.
You will have up to two minutes to make your comments
unless you represent a group in which case
you can speak up to 10 minutes,
but then other members of your group
are choosing to not speak.
Good morning.
Good morning, Mayor, Council, and staff.
I'm Charles Krellian.
I'm the current Vice Chair of the Design Review Commission.
In numerous conversations that I've had
with some Council members and staff,
I proposed a three-point recommendation for this issue.
One was to keep Design Review Commission as a voting body, as a commission.
Two was to bifurcate the pathways, the housing law path where we could be advisory and everything
else where we could still have a vote at the table.
And then finally, to get rid of the second round trip meeting of the DRC.
I think that would solve most of the problems we have today while keeping our role intact.
A lot of us serve and put many, many hours into volunteering for the city, partially
because we want to vote at the table.
We can come any day and speak at a meeting such as this and give you our opinion.
I can send an email.
We serve to have a vote at the table.
I fear you might lose current and or future candidates for such an important role if the
folks don't have a vote.
And finally I'd just like to say I think if we take this recommendation which I think
goes very extreme to one side, especially for the commercial projects, I think we're
doing a real disservice to the citizens of Walnut Creek and I would ask you to consider
more of a compromise approach similar to what I've been discussing with all of you for many
many months.
Thank you.
Excuse me for the record. I want to clarify that you're not violating the Brown Act and having conversations with the members of council. I
Have had individual conversations and you have not been communicating what you've heard from one to someone else. No. Okay. Thank you
Thank you. I see mr. Lindshide. It looks like he wants to speak as well
Good morning council
mayor Silva
Bob Lynshide representing the Walla Creek Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau
We we have an advisory board
Organization called the economic development working group that meets on a regular basis
city staff and council liaison liaisons are represented
We appreciate the taking this up calling a special meeting for this purpose because we feel
that
The effort in economic development is to streamline a process and I think you're you're taking that part very seriously. I
Appreciate Charles's input relative to a representative design review
I think the second bite of the apples the one area that's been of most concern particularly
Once the council made a decision and sent it back to design review in some cases on non residential development
so
Where we applaud the efforts of the staff in particular and the council to take this up
We support the reduction of the amount of time to get
permits
going forward and we stand ready to have additional conversations in the future about what that might look like with other
Entitlement and permit process. So thank you. So we're being asked today whether we want
About specific process changes. Do you have specific comments on those?
Well, we support the staff recommendation relative to the reduction of both for housing as well as our non-residential
Project correct. All right. Thank you. Thanks for the question
Any other members of the public wish to speak to us on this agenda item?
Seeing none. I will close the public hearing bring it back to
If staff could step forward again, I have a question. Mr. Kreling suggested an alternative
Could you clarify what that would be because I'm sure he's spoken to you about it
so I think that he was you know, fairly clear that essentially for the projects that were not subject to the state
objective design standards that those
continue to remain at a
decision-making Design Review Commission.
And so whenever we look at that,
that's indeed an option with the following caveat.
It maintains that loop back around and under our process.
And to try and eliminate,
to try and get a decision at the Design Review Commission,
if that were to happen at the first meeting
instead of looping back around,
it sets up a conflict as it goes forward
into the Planning Commission decision-making because there's the strong potential for
decisions being made at the Planning Commission level for other entitlements that would potentially
conflict with a decision by the Design Review Commission.
And so that is the reason why we had recommended that it be an advisory body as opposed to
a decision-making body.
So let me see if I can paraphrase what you've said.
If they were first in the queue, which they are now in all cases, and then it went and
it had to be finalized at Planning Commission, there could be a conflict between two decision-making
authorities bodies where the Planning Commission was overriding what the Design Review Commission
had recommended.
Correct.
Or had decided.
Had decided.
So the loop back is a function of basically bifurcating the decision-making authority.
Yes.
Other questions for Councilmember welcome.
Are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
In other words, are we trying to create something that's so encompassing that we're losing
the ability for the Design Review Commission to be able to be an important part of what
we're seeing for the future of development in Walnut Creek,
because we're trying to create something
that's going to cover all bases
so that nothing ever comes back to DRC.
I would say no, and the reason why I would say no
is that under this recommendation,
it still has the ability for design review,
people that are on the Design Review Commission Board,
whatever you wanna call it, to provide that input
and to provide that elevated level of design
for the discretionary projects that Council had asked for.
It is a logic problem.
We've tried to go through and not throw the baby out
with the bathwater, but ultimately the choices are
keep the loop back around in order to be able
to have the process work or to be able to have
an advisory process for the design review,
whatever we call it, commissioner, board,
and then going into Planning Commission.
And somebody ultimately needs to decide.
And I think that there have been greater minds than ours
that have looked at this, too.
And that as earlier in July, whenever we brought forward
what other neighbors were doing, essentially there
were two models to either three models.
Do what we do right now.
have an advisory design review board or commission,
have everything delegated to staff,
or have a planning commission
that had design review expertise on it.
One more question then.
So in practical sense,
does the DRC advisory then going to the planning commission
essentially what would be a similar analogy
to the city council getting a staff report?
We take that as a serious recommendation
But that can be over overruled by a vote of the Planning Commission in this case
Yes, that'd be a good equitable example
Or I wouldn't say necessarily overruled but you know
They take that into their consideration and they may choose not to take one or more any elements into their decision-making
Thank you
Councilmember darling
Thank you
So, thinking about the way it's working in the staff proposal, the design review commission
has delegated certain things to staff, and we would continue to do that under this proposal.
Is there a potential for planning commission to look at the things that right now are only
going to DRC and not going to planning commission?
Could the Planning Commission have the ability to delegate to DRC just as DRC has delegated
to staff certain things that, is it going to be possible to define those things and
do some kind of a delegation?
I'm going to be a little bit nuanced in my answer here, as a qualified yes, and the qualified
yes is that yes for design review criteria, but the qualification is to make sure that
We're just talking about design review criteria,
not entitlements, because there are certain things
under state law that a planning commission needs to do.
Yeah, and I'm assuming that we've been able
to parse through projects and identify some
that had no entitlements but just needed design review
in the current process and we could,
there was a potential for us to work with planning
and DRC to figure out.
Yes, and the way that I would characterize that
is where that threshold is set.
So currently it's set at a certain level
by DRC historically, you know, back decades ago.
There is the ability to look at that again
in that context that you were just talking about.
Okay, and then second question is,
have we brought this issue, I know it's hard
because when you have an advisory
or a decision-making body and you ask them to change,
sometimes the answer will be no.
but have we talked to the DRC in a DRC session
about the potential ways to change the process?
So, no, we haven't talked to the DRC
and a DRC, you know, committee or, you know,
a commission meeting.
I have spoken with DRC members, you know,
separately about this issue,
but this was council direction
and so we were trying to honor council's
direction to us before we did any subsequent
discussions of what you're talking about.
Okay, and I guess my question is, did you get a sense,
I know Design Review Commission is a relatively
difficult position to fill because they have to be architects.
Is the role, it's envisioned in staff,
and this is gonna be a get sense kind of answer,
is it going to be substantive enough that we are going
be able to continue to attract people to the task.
And I honestly don't know, and the reason why I say that
is because there is Mr. Kraling had mentioned that he feels
that there may be an issue, but he also
is one of the non-architectural members of the board.
He has a very strong passion and commitment to the community
and feels a very strong advocacy for that voice to be heard.
I think that there will always be an opportunity for people
to volunteer and to have a passion for creating
a great community.
I'm not sure if we would need to do additional outreach.
Much has been talked about at the mayor and chairs
meeting last Friday for different boards
and commissions.
but it has a different role in substance.
And so as long as the city is clear
about what the expectations are
and the roles and responsibilities,
my experience and then looking at our neighbors
is that they have been able to find people
to fill those positions.
And I don't really have any questions in my mind
in terms of a gut as to whether or not
we'd be able to fill that roles.
Yeah, let me just add to that briefly a few thoughts.
obviously the role, if your council chooses to go this path,
it'd be a change and obviously expectations need to change,
but let's be clear, there's still a very formal process
that would go through a design review commission for input.
So the input would be sought,
the input would be brought forward to the planning commission
in terms of recruitment going forward.
I think Eric answered that clearly
and we would find out obviously over time,
but I would add you have other advisory commissions
to the council, one being pros commission,
parks, recreation, open space that is purely advisory
and does not have authority for decision-making,
and that body is filled on a regular basis.
Thank you.
Thank you for reading the minds of the community for me.
Council Member Francois.
Thank you, Erica, for the report,
for all the hard work that went into it.
I just want to ask about the advisory component
because that would be new for us and-
For DRC.
for DRC and how kind of the mechanics
of how that would work.
Because I have watched their meetings.
They are professional architects, landscape architects.
At least the meetings I've seen it,
it seems like it's been a little more art than science.
The comments are more general as you would expect
and not very specific in terms of change A, B and C.
So if we were to change them to advisory,
would there be some sort of learning curve
or training that would have to happen?
I know other cities have done this.
Danville does it, Palo Alto does it where DRC is advisory.
But would that, would staff be working with the DRC
in kind of pushing them to provide comments
that could objectively be determined by staff
or the Planning Commission to have been satisfied?
think it's three things so I think that's one element of it I think that
the other element are that we are currently in the process of updating our
objective design standards for residential projects as well as updating
the design and the design guidelines for non-residential projects so I think that
having, and DRC has provided substantial input on those elements, so I think that having
more conversations about what all those things mean.
And then lastly, it would also be a conversation between the DRC slash DRB and Planning Commission
and about what expectations were, and potentially with some council guidance, and so in terms
of policy direction, so it could be all of those things together.
I would be looking toward city manager and council for increased direction on how that
might occur, but staff is here to help support that.
And if I could just add to that a little bit of history in terms of design review commission
feedback, something I had heard not too long after I started about six years ago and periodically
thereafter was some of the feedback from the design review commissioners was very challenging
for the developers and that there were five sets of feedback
from the commissioners
and then the developer wasn't sure what to do with that.
Both the Design Review Commission
and staff have been very intentional about trying
to change that dynamic while certainly the opinions
of the individual commissioners are brought forward to try
to synthesize that into clear majority feedback
to the developers so they have a clear takeaway.
So that has been evolving over time.
That's the standard now.
I would think that if you make the change to move this to advisory, that would be the
same expectation that while there are opinions offered up, we try to get to a synthesized
majority moving that forward so that the developer and staff know what to carry forward.
I mean, I think that's really important.
So and then in that instance, and the commission secretary has heard all the feedback and then
tries to synthesize it and summarize it.
Did I get that right?
Or the commission chair.
Or the commission chair.
Yeah, and to clarify that's not unique to the design review commission that should be happening at every advisory board
Body it should be happy never council meetings every governing body. So
That's generally a best practice that there's clear direction coming out of them. That makes sense
so some of the
Yes
Sorry, I wanted to just make sure and actually council member of Francois kind of sparked me on this
looking at the chart that was put together with about
12 different local jurisdictions around, which of the ones, only a couple are actually mentioned
as advisory. One is Concord, I think Danville is more advisory. But of the ones that you
have here, which would be most like what would be what staff is proposing? Would it be Concord
in terms of advisory?
So quite honestly, I have to go back and look at the analogies and so forth.
But Walnut Creek is always unique to Walnut Creek.
And so I think that being able to look at a design review that's advisory so that you
just simply look at the chart, Concord has that, et cetera.
And then there are some others.
We could look back and look at the specific way that it is in the code to be able to get
refinements, but I'll be candid off the top of my head.
I can't recall it specifically.
Okay.
Thanks.
Thank you.
A couple of questions.
The first one might be for the city attorney.
Commission board, does one word mean something precisely in state law versus the other?
Our transportation commission, our pros commission,
our arts commission are all advisory.
They have some limited authority,
like the transportation commission
related to residential parking permits.
But they're still called a commission,
even though they're advisory.
Do we have to change this to design review board?
No, the council can name this particular board
as you desire.
Some of the other commissions that exist in the city,
for instance, the planning commission is a,
It's a creature of state law,
and so the council can actually sit
as the Planning Commission,
but if the council creates a separate body
that's a Planning Commission,
you do refer to it as the Planning Commission,
and the same is true for the Board of Appeals
for building permit issues and whatnot.
So we could call the design review,
continue to call it a commission,
but change its level of authority
and scope of its responsibilities.
The other is what we're really talking about here
is putting the design review body
at the beginning of the process.
And they have one opportunity, it might be a long meeting,
but they have one opportunity during that meeting
to provide advice and counsel to the applicant
that will carry forward to be heard and reflected
in front of the Planning Commission
or the final review body,
if in fact it turns out to be on appeal to the council.
Okay, thank you.
Any other questions for staff?
All right, thank you very much staff.
We have heard presentation from staff.
We have asked questions.
We've had input from members of the public.
Council Member Francois, could I start with you?
Yes, well, first of all, thank you to staff again.
Thank you to Mr. Krelling
and the members of the Design Review Commission
who serve us so well and have for a long period of time,
appreciate their involvement and efforts towards beautifying our city. I think I
come down on the side that I of the staff recommendation for a couple of
reasons. As a land use attorney I have seen how other cities deal with the
issue of design review. Many cities would not have a separate design review
commission at all. The Planning Commission would serve those functions
and perhaps an architect or a landscape architect
would serve on that body but maybe not.
It may just be lay people serving as planning commissioners
acting on the design review body.
I do a fair amount of work in Palo Alto
and they have a system very similar to this
where a split between small and large projects,
small projects do not go to their architectural review board.
Large projects do.
architectural review board as advisory only. The only difference is the ultimate decision
maker in both instances is the planning director. So here I wouldn't suggest that change. I think
traveling in a linear path is key and eliminating the loopback is necessary and we've talked about
that for a long time and so I think for the reasons kind of Ms. Vandenbrand
expressed that keeping the DRC as a decision-making body would then could
could force a loopback if the Planning Commission and this is often happened
at the Planning Commission level where these issues intersect the Planning
Commission approves a map or a use permit that results in some design
changes. What you'd have you would have to go back to the DRC so we're not
eliminating the loopback by making them a design review commission. I think the
other thing that I why I'm in favor of the staff recommendation is this is from
a practical standpoint what's happening already. 70% of the projects are being
heard by the staff and I appreciate that data and really 30% but a relatively
small number are going to DRC so I'm strongly in favor of eliminating the
loopback we've talked about what the challenges will be with this and I think
it's something we're working on with all of our commissions and we should be
modeling that at the council level to to provide clear concise direction to
applicants and I think that that by making this an advisory body that will
be crucial I think going forward so that staff and then possibly the Planning Commission
would be in the, well I guess it would be the Planning Commission, would be in the position
of determining whether or not their advice had been incorporated.
So I'm in favor of the staff recommendation.
Thank you and thank you for taking the spaghetti we gave you in crafting a proposal.
My primary goal in this is to eliminate putting the design review commission into an untenable
position which is what they were in where they didn't have discretion.
They had no ability to say yes or no and they were forced to say yes or no and they just
said what was in and then had to get overturned.
So this really does a good job of getting to that.
How do we handle projects that are strictly going by the objective design standards?
I do like having the ability for those larger projects
that are subject to the objective design standards
go through the DRC so that they can make sure
that they're being properly interpreted.
A couple things I would like to see
kind of tweaks on the staff proposal.
I have heard of, I want to get rid of mandatory loopback
but if an applicant sees value in going back
to the DRC to deal with some issue that has developed.
I think it would be useful to have them be able to do that
without having to go all the way back
through the Planning Commission.
I think we would rapidly run out of meetings
if we did that, but look and see whether or not
that's a possibility.
I would also like to have a cooperative effort
between DRC and Planning Commission.
I mean, there are projects right now
that are just going to DRC
that don't go to Planning Commission.
Is there the possibility of looking between those two organizations and saying, okay,
just as we have delegated to staff, are there things that Planning Commission would be willing
to delegate just to DRC? It will keep small, simple things out of a two-meeting process,
if we can find a way to keep those at one. And I would like to commend staff for working on the
the idea of synthesizing recommendations from the DRC
so that it's clear what that direction is.
And I think our efforts,
there's many times when I was on planning commission
where we recognized that we were just
recommending to council what they do.
And we found that if we work together
and synthesize that into a strong recommendation to council
that that was very powerful when it went forward.
And so we would want to make sure
that our design review commissioners recognize
that in changing how things operate,
there is power in them coming up with a recommendation
to the Planning Commission that is a group recommendation
and well articulated and continue that track record
of good governance so that it's something
that is given a great deal of regard at Planning Commission.
I don't wanna in any way minimize
the importance of design review.
I think it's part of what helps Walnut Creek
stay an attractive, open, welcoming community
that is interesting and architecturally attractive
to people, so I don't want to minimize their role
in helping us meet our, which is part
of our overall economic development.
We want to be a cool place to go, so.
So thank you for all your efforts,
and those are my suggestions.
so in the interest of synthesizing we will be synthesizing all of this if
you're is the only voice on that it may not get all the way
okay council member welcome uh thank you and thank you erica and
staff for putting all this together i know there was a lot
to go over and uh and i think that we're looking at as council member
darling so we're looking at really the future
in how we're seeing walnut creek go i'm really i've been split on this
And I'm concerned in one sense that are we going too far
in this direction, we're trying to be more efficient,
we're trying not to have the loop back for a second round,
which I completely understand, and also making sure
that we're utilizing DRC to the best purposes
and not forcing projects on them
that they have really no say in.
However, I am concerned that we're going down a path
where we're moving from the city controlling developers and developments to developers
controlling the city. And this may be due in large part to the state mandate that are
tying the hands of cities, frankly. We're seeing this. I mean, this is what's going
on. But it nevertheless is dangerous. It's a dangerous road where the city can completely
lose control of our future and our vision for the city, both in development and design.
And I have a concern where this is a canary in the coal mine and acquiescing on these
type of things and on smaller projects that are reviewed, become a harbinger of our loss
of control of future proposed projects, we'd be losing at checks and balances, which is
what I've actually always appreciated between the DRC and the planning commission.
And that really does give me the most concern in that developers are becoming more emboldened
and more aggressive, which is again occurring in large part because of state mandates allowing
enormous leeway for especially residential developers.
I do agree the clear direction is needed, and you've now got three different opinions
on this, but we do need it from, I think, from commissions and counsel.
And it's important to eliminate the loop back to DRC as much as possible, but I just think
this is going too far in taking away any type of more authoritative responsibility from
the DRC in it just becoming more advisory so I'm gonna vote against this
I would like to see this somewhere in the middle but I may end up losing the
vote anyway but that's my overall concern. Mayor Pro Tem. I am probably the
least sophisticated planning person on council and and yet I understand how
how really difficult it is for developers
and why there had to be some kind of straightening
so that the cities that don't want to allow development
at all are abusing the system of commissions
and design review and stretching out meetings.
So part of the reason we're dealing with this
is because the state had instituted
the bugaboo of the five meeting limit.
It's limiting our ability to find exactly the right design
for whatever the building is that's coming.
I also have heard it from the other side,
which is, you know, developers, bless their hearts,
I do not know how they don't commit suicide
after 10 years in the business
because it's a very difficult way to make a living.
And so I think I need to be a little more understanding
about what developers go through too.
And so I have, internally, my conflict
is how do we simplify?
How do we give design an important role in all of this?
And how do we keep from just taking into perpetuity
the same old, same old?
We don't, in all of this,
I believe that the most important committee commission
to keep creativity going in Walnut Creek
is the Design Review Commission.
And that's, you know, they're the ones that get to think
a little bit outside of the box.
Nevertheless, given the rules that we have
that we have had under the state,
I believe that I will, sorry Kevin,
support the staff's recommendation
and that I will trust that the staff will allow creativity
without slamming doors just because we did it
the same old, same old,
that this will give a bigger purpose
the design review and therefore they have more creativity in how they deliver messages
about good design and that it does respect the developer's need to get clear information
as quickly in the process as they can get it.
So I'm supporting the staff review.
Thank you again to staff for all of the work on this and for looking at all of the alternatives.
I am going to be supportive of this for a number of reasons.
Fortunately or unfortunately, I was not only on the planning commission initially, but
I've been on the city council for a while.
For a number of years, we had liaison roles.
At different times, I was the liaison to the design review commission.
As well-meaning as those commissioners are, they are not inclined to come up with a single
set of recommendations because it is about their creative and subjective points of view
and training.
And so it was difficult.
Many times their points of view were just left as five points of view.
Sometimes it would be seven points of view by the time they were done at the meeting
because they'd start in one place and they'd move around.
It has been a recurring concern of the,
both the residential and the commercial development
because they can't get consistent input
and consistent direction, clear direction
in an efficient timeframe.
And that time yields cost increases for development
and those cost increases transfer to lease cost increases
where the public rental cost increases, price increases.
I think what this does is it eliminates the tendency
to say to yourself as you're making recommendations
in the first meeting, it's coming back to me anyway.
I don't have to get it right the first time.
We need to get it right the first time.
And I also think that we can call it a commission,
we don't have to call it a board,
but we have advisory commissions
and we have advisory commissions that have experts on them.
We have a transportation commission right now
that has a transportation planning engineer
who volunteered to do, to use his skills in his free time.
And so I think the same thing will continue to happen.
I think it is having one process that is consistent,
makes it clear no matter if you're small or large,
residential, commercial, taking advantage
state housing law or not. Having a different set of rules depending on where you are in
the arena. There are times when the project starts as one thing and then decides it runs
a pro forma of the market changes and it's suddenly in or out of those state laws and
the requirements of the state laws. I think this will allow for creativity. It'll be more
creative in a very tighter timeframe and the developers will be able to get their input
upfront and move it forward to planning commission and the planning commission will have its
authority. And I think there are other communities that have gone ahead of us. We are one of
the few that still is doing this loop-de-loop process. That does not mean we're special.
That means we are, in my mind, behind the times. So I will be supporting the recommendation.
with regard to Council Member Darling,
the opportunity for the applicant to loop back.
Can I ask the city attorney,
can our ordinance reflect that option for developers?
It's not a freebie.
Is that the option to have further review?
To convene the Design Review Commission,
paid to do that to get consultation?
The council could provide that, really,
within the authority for the design review commission,
if you will, and then developers could opt into that.
This would be a voluntary process
if they wanted to be correct.
I guess if there were to be a modification
of some sort, Steve, though in the planning commission,
where the decision making body,
then generally wouldn't it be that the application
for a modification, unless it's a really minor one,
would go back to the planning commission?
For the ultimate action, yes.
But if I'm understanding the question correctly,
it to get to have further consultation with the design review commission on a
voluntary basis so I understand that that was I was asking about councilmember
darlings or recommendation right she'd like to see voluntary consultation with
the design review Commission that that also means that the applicant if he or
she particularly liked the input of one or two design review commissioners they
they can go offline.
Well, so if it is a voluntary consultation,
it's not binding.
And so it's recommendations,
either initially or supplemental in the hypothetical
that they maybe go back,
still would be advisory to the decision-making body,
be it the planning commissioner, staff, whoever it is.
So let's get clarification then.
Okay, sorry, Council Member Darling.
I was just gonna say,
So it sounds like if you wanted to retain the ability for a project, a really big project
like the transit village, to go back and seek a product, project modification, that would
have to go through that was binding.
They would have to be voluntarily going back to DRC and then to planning commission because
the planning commission is the binding.
Correct.
And I'll add one layer to this and Erica can offer further input.
There are certain instances where even the planning commission will condition a project
that delegates that ultimate determination to staff.
And so you could have a situation if the council wanted to have this structure where if someone
opted into that voluntary process later on, if they wanted to have that ability, the final,
you know, the recommendation or consultation results could be presented to staff, the community
development director, for a final determination.
That's fairly common with staff level implementation type issues.
Erica, do you have anything further you want to add to that?
I think that that is entirely accurate.
In terms of a developer wanting to voluntarily go back and seek additional input from a design
review commission that we haven't not sure that we've had that circumstance
come about yet and is theoretically possible and that if they do that
voluntarily and that we have what we know way to do that are you talking
about after they've received their entitlements so as long as it doesn't
change the nature of the entitlements there's still the ability to you know
get additional design advice etc which I also think that they would be getting
from their paid architects, but, you know, there's certainly the opportunity to be able
to create that opportunity and not have it be part of the overall process.
But it's voluntary and not mandatory.
And I would add that I think if you're really using it, you know, in the hypothetical situation
that you get the approvals, the developer's going kind of into the final design stage
and they want to talk about some minor modification or something like that, which does happen
with projects, that if the council were going to consider that, I would recommend that consistent
with other kind of delegations of authority that if you say you can have the consultation,
the consultation happens, but then it's really a kind of a community development director
level decision, because you're really implementing the basic purpose that has already been approved
by the planning commission or whatever the determining body was, the council, if it happens
to be the council.
So it's much more kind of limited in scope.
I've seen projects in other communities where, you know, where certain architectural modifications
have been made at the end because they were not completely specified and sometimes that
goes well and sometimes that is not well received at all because the legislative body thinks
well we thought we were getting project X and what got built looks like project Y and
And so if you wanted to leave a path for there to be some further consultation, you could
have the decision ultimately be made by the community development director because that
type of decision doesn't normally come back to the legislative body in my experience.
Did that address Councilmember Darling?
It sounds like there is the ability from the planning commission to say, and this is something
that needs settling, and it goes to the community development director.
That's the easiest way to tackle that.
And what about delegating from the planning commission down to the design review commission,
those projects that right now only see one of those bodies?
How difficult is that to do?
Well, I mean, it's not difficult.
The council's done that already.
You know, you recall we, a few years ago,
delegated some final decision-making authority
to the Design Review Commission,
and it kind of left the Planning Commission,
came to the Design Review.
So writing it is relatively easy,
but I think it's much more of a policy call for the council.
Like, do you want the Planning Commission
to have the ability to further delegate,
because that is then presumably gonna bring the DRC back
into a decision-making role.
And that's where, that I think is the policy dialogue
that the council's having right now.
And you're weighing and balancing
by allowing that delegation,
you have the potential to reduce the number of meetings
because now they only go to one place,
but you also have the risk that that decision
might be something that is not consistent
with the current state law or something like that.
Yeah, you do.
I don't know that you really think allowed here,
but you don't really reduce the number of meetings that way
because you're just substituting
the Planning Commission meeting for a DRC meeting
at that point.
So you still have the same
and you potentially may add one more
if whatever comes out of the design review
through the delegated authority
ultimately gets appealed to the Planning Commission,
which would likely be the appropriate appellate body
if it's a kind of a design related appeal.
Yeah, I'm just thinking,
just looking back and thinking of those projects
that didn't ever go to the planning commission
that stayed at design review
if there was a way to make sure that that is still an option
just from a good government.
Yeah, I would just, I don't mean to,
well, just be direct about this.
I mean, this appears to me to be
the very policy discussion you're having right now.
It's like the council can decide
whether you want to change the role for the designer view
to always be advisory or to be advisory in most instances,
but in very limited instances be decision making,
but that's kind of a decision
for the five council members to make sure.
Can I ask staff a further question?
Give us an example where DRC is the only body involved.
It would mean that there is no general plan, no-
There's no legislative actions at all.
The council has, for instance I think it was the NOMA project that went, the NOMA project
went only to the DRC and I believe came to the council on appeal for CEQA only.
So it was, so it was already entitled for the adequate density, et cetera, it was, that's
correct.
legislative act, so if there's any zoning change plan development permit or general plan modification
Involved in any decision at all then it's going to come to the Planning Commission and the City Council for sure
another example again is Creighton barrel and on the commercial side and so that was a
project that went uniquely to design review Commission for
decision
So you've got one example of this residential one example that's commercial
Ultimately if you were to do the premise is one
meeting
So if it were to be delegated to design review
Because there was no need for further
Land-use decisions
Would design review are we willing to say design review gets one bite at the apple?
and then it moves.
Because I don't think that's what's been happening.
For DRC approvals only.
One's that require only DRC approval now.
So, as the city attorney said,
the policy decision that in front of you is
what kind of beast do you want
the Design Review Commission to be?
Do you want it to be decision making?
Do you want it to be advisory?
Do you want it to be a blend?
And that is about the only insight that I have.
Yeah, I mean, I'll jump in on that
because I think you framed it well.
I think it gets confusing if we do that.
And I think it gets confusing
for the Design Review Commission.
I think it gets confusing for the public.
It gets confusing for the applicant.
Wait, is a design review that's approving this
or is it the Planning Commission?
Or is it design only or design and Planning Commission?
I think we need to be linear.
I think we need to eliminate the loopback.
And as a result, we were creating a new meeting
before the Planning Commission,
but we're eliminating the loopback for the DRC.
So net total, you know, we're the same.
I don't think it goes too far.
I think arguably going too far would be eliminating,
it would be going too far
to eliminate the commission altogether.
And that I don't think any of us are comfortable doing.
So I think this is a tried and true process
that other cities have implemented, it works well.
Their professionals are still very involved
and make meaningful comments that are adhered to
and incorporated into the plans.
And they have nice looking projects as a result.
And I appreciate, I think, you know,
a project could be conditioned to, you know,
and they generally are to save modifications,
minor modifications can be dealt with by staff.
I would think even under this process,
the condition could say anything more,
well, I don't wanna make it more confusing.
Minor modifications go to staff.
A major one would likely go back
to the Planning Commission.
It sounds like it would have to go.
Yeah.
It sounds like it would have to go back
because that would be the decision making authority.
That's the decision making authority.
So with that, I'm prepared to move the staff recommendation.
So we have a motion and a second
on the staff recommendation.
You've also heard some nuanced comments.
I will call for a roll call vote.
Council Member Francois.
Aye.
Mayor Pro Tem Hask you.
Aye.
Council Member Darling.
Aye.
Council Member Wilk.
No.
Mayor Silva.
Aye.
Motion carries four to one.
Thank you very much, and this will be coming back to us
as amendments to the ordinance.
Director, we will be bringing those forward also
along with the objective design standards
part of the process. So we'll be able to see both both what they're working from
as well. Thank you. A time estimate on that and by spring next year looking at
you need. So thank you thank you so much. We're gonna take a five-minute break
while staff gets ready for the next portion of the meeting. Good morning
again and welcome back to the October 24th,
2023 special meeting of the Walnut Creek City Council.
The next item on our agenda is a closed session
on a conference with real property negotiators and conference with
legal counsel under the of potential anticipated litigation.
Before we begin I will remind everyone that
We are taking public comment before we go into closed session.
Each person will be allowed up to two minutes to speak.
I do have speaker cards, so I will be calling you in groups of three or four
to line up and until I call your name please don't
stand up unless you want to be standing the whole time
inadvertently. You may have up to 10 minutes if you are
representing a group, but that is under the assumption
that other representatives of your group will not be speaking you may have one or two people
from your group speak during speaking during the 10 minutes. So I will turn to the city attorney
before we start for a clarification on why what this purpose of this meeting is and why we're
going into closed session. Thank you Madam Mayor. The council has on the agenda today the conference
with real property negotiators.
As the council is aware, as members of the public are aware,
the town, the city does own a portion of property,
a small lot that is adjacent to the Seven Hills Development.
The council has the ability under the Brown Act
to consider real property negotiations.
You do that normally in a closed session context
because the parties are negotiating back and forth.
Any action that the council would take on this
would be done in open session and would be as part of a properly noticed Brown Act meeting
so the members of the public would see all of the terms if they're if the parties are able to come
to a tentative agreement and an issue is to be presented to the city council. So the council is
in closed session today to provide direction to your real property negotiators. Thank you. Any
questions from council members to staff before we begin? All right this is an opportunity for
public comment. I've outlined the guidelines for this. I will say the first four speakers will be
Olesha Epps, Jack Waddell, Judith Cox, and Marcia Nui. And if you can please line up over here and
we'll welcome the first speaker. Again a reminder two minutes or up to 10 if you're representing a
a group and if you are representing the group, you will need to indicate as such.
Good morning.
May I begin?
Good morning.
Good morning.
My name is Alessia Epps.
I'm resident of and voter of Walnut Creek, raising a family of three young kids, living
right next to the development in question.
I repeatedly urge the City of Walnut Creek and the City Council not to transfer lot A,
and not to allow this main access at Kinross Drive as the main entrance of this massive
project.
The land for this project is under county jurisdiction, but the requested main access
route via Kinross Drive is in the City of Walnut Creek, and the City Council has the
power to keep its promise to Walnut Creek residents and not allow Kinross Drive to become
the main entry point.
Lot A was created in the past precisely to avoid what the developer wants the council
to approve.
Also the alternative county entrance is available.
The county approved this oversized project and the change in zoning and land use designation
to allow it, but a city's residents should not bury the father brunt of unnecessary disruptive
neighborhood access to this poorly approved project when a county entrance exists and
is available. The city has stated, promised through the past verifiable and repeated historical
actions and documents that King Charles Drive should not be connected to Seven Hills Ranch
The city long ago wisely created a barrier, this Lot A piece of land, to
specifically prevent this action that is now being considered. Therefore City
Council be kindly asking you to please stop this negative impact on our lives
on the citizens of the City of Walnut Creek who live directly in the location.
Please come to this area, walk the streets, you know, like get a local feel
how it feels on the ground living there, how it will be affected, all of the
residents who are directly there. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker,
please. My name is Jack Waddell. I live in Siski drive in Walnut Creek. I'm going to
take a really narrow focus here to something that is relevant but not the
right hand point. This is a, many of the residents are concerned about the
connection to this project and one of those problems is the possible use of
Kenross Drive for that purpose. Now I don't know whether any of you have not
been on Kenross Drive but if you haven't you certainly should be. You should be
taking a car driving back and forth because I think it would be totally
relevant as the issue. The anybody who knows Ken Ross Drive will realize that
this is a very narrow and steep and winding street which is really totally
unusable for a large traffic that comes and goes of a construction nature. The
The whole concept of using this drive, if you take it from University of Valley Road
to Marchbanks, would be to totally disrupt the neighborhood along Kinross Drive for a
substantial period of time during the construction period and for even a longer time during the
period of occupation, which would be several years.
So I'm asking the board to ask the people here that are representing the project to
tell the board that they are not going to use this as a possible alternative.
Thank you.
Can I clarify, and I appreciate your comments.
So you are speaking to the section of Kinross Drive that is private that extends from March
Bank to the nation.
Well, it says it's private, but, you know, yes, but that's what we're talking about.
What were the development?
You're not?
You're an issue of Alley Road.
To Marchbank.
To Marchbanks.
You're not referring to the lower...
Many of the people are concerned about their use.
I got it.
I just wanted to clarify which portion of the process you were speaking.
Yeah.
Other people will talk to other issues.
All right.
Thank you very much.
All right.
Next speaker, please.
Yes.
Hi.
Good morning.
My name is Judith Cox, and can you hear me now?
Yes.
I just purchased our townhouse at 328 Kinross Drive two years ago.
So we're new to the neighborhood.
I don't have any prepared statements.
I completely agree with the other two speakers.
But I just want to tell you, living on that street, as now a grandmother age,
with all the young families and young children, I can't imagine that street becoming a through street.
So as the other gentleman said, it's windy.
We have three speed bumps.
narrow. It's completely residential, so I don't know how much of a threat this is.
People in our community are concerned about it. So we took the time to come here this morning to
make sure that you're aware of how inappropriate it would be, especially since March Banks is the
perfect solution. There's no need for it in my opinion. March Banks has perfect access to
Ignacio and Ken Ross should stay a residential Street. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Ms. Cox
next speaker, please
mayor
Council members. I'm Marcia Newey a resident of Walnut Creek
My hope is that you our city representatives will uphold the forward-thinking of our past
Representatives for over 50 years and maintaining that there would be no Ken Ross access to Seven Hills Ranch
and I'm talking about the lower half of Ken Ross that you wanted to clarify, the
County Seven Hills Ranch environmental impact report stated that the county
road access at Seven Hills Ranch Road and I quote would lessen the project's
biological resources impact and the impact to the wetlands. The city does not
have to allow disruptive access through our neighborhoods when this County Road
exists. Our neighborhood should not take the hit because the county approved this
project. As I stated in June to this council, and I repeat again, are you going
to do the right thing and protect our neighborhood? Thank you. Thank you very
much. The next speakers will be Jan Warren, Carl Lofthouse, Leslie Hunt, Diane Young.
Good morning. Jan Warren, Woodlands resident for 38 years. I first want to express my disappointment
that this meeting, a special meeting was called, and I think if you can have a special meeting
we ought to have more notice, 9 o'clock. It's not the best time to get input from
the public and to have a sit here through, we could have been number one,
you know, have a sit here all day, we've lost people who wanted to speak and I
just think that's a, I know you'll have a lot of things doing but it would be
more respectful if you had let us go first. We have seen many closed sessions
on agendas before regular meetings, and I didn't go back to try and count them, but
this has been going on for several years at least.
And so we're not talking about the pros and cons of the project.
We're talking about this Lot A and why in the world it's still in the mix while you're
still negotiating.
And yes, if at some point it'll come to the public after you've already decided.
So we'll have public input at that point.
So we're doing the best we can to give input.
As the First Lady said, that lot is in Walnut Creek.
The county approved it.
Use a county road entrance.
We're going to have a big project going into Heather Farms.
And how many dump trucks do you want on our YVR road?
I would like to lift up the piece by Bob Simmons that he submitted for today's meeting.
And I totally comply with and support his comments and hope you will as well. Thank you
Thank you
Good morning council members. My name is Carl Lofthouse
I've been a resident and voter in Walnut Creek for 30 years over 30 years
I'm also a board member of Heather firms. HOA
I've come to speak in opposition to the transfer of latte to the developer
One of our main concerns is about traffic short-cutting through our community.
To this end, we recently rejected a settlement offer from the developer, which offered a
bunch of money if we dropped our lawsuit.
It also proposed traffic changes to smooth the flow, but which we could clearly see would
make it much easier for their delivery trucks and other daily traffic to take a shortcut
straight through the middle of our community.
Our disagreement shouldn't prevent the other proposed traffic improvements from happening.
The developer, however, will disagree and try to convince you that we are bad people
who are not interested in what is good for the surrounding neighborhoods.
But as board members, our primary responsibility is to the Heather Farm HOA community and not
necessarily to those neighborhoods beyond our borders, just as your responsibilities
are to Walnut Creek and not Alamo, Danville, and Concord.
Also, I want to say that we're not opposed to housing in the Seven Hills area, but not
such a huge commercial development.
And of course, we're not crazy about the developer's plan to completely flatten and dispose of
all the Seven Hills in this pristine nature area.
That said, we have a message for the developer.
Troy who's sitting behind me we noticed you have recently changed the name of your project and we
Imagine if you're struggling to come up with the name. We have a suggestion for you. How about the missing seven Hills?
Thank you. Thank you
next speaker, please
Good morning council I'm speaking on behalf of
Friends of the creeks and
The Opens Walnut Creek Open Space Foundation
Have you all seen the letter that Bob Simmons wrote you yesterday and read it?
then I don't think I need to repeat it verbatim, but I
Think that the environmental community and the city community in general those who have spoken out have made it pretty clear that we see
severe problems with this project
It is in the county, but all its impacts fall on the city.
Of the witnesses that have testified in favor of this project, probably three quarters of
them are prospective residents, and most of them do not live in Walnut Creek at the moment,
so they are not us, but we are bearing the impacts.
There is a lot of question about the legal status of this project.
A lot of things that are unsettled yet.
We cannot know how they're going to come out at this point, because they're not under
our control, but I think that it is extremely foolish on our part to give up the control
that we have with Lot A before we know what those projects, those decisions will be.
We certainly do not want to be liable for a project which the vast majority of our citizenry
that has spoken out at these meetings has indicated clearly that they do not want.
It is not that we object to seeing development of some sort on that piece of land, but it
could be a whole lot more environmentally friendly, a whole lot more in harmony with
The things that Walnut Creek has held important
for 50 years now, back to the beginning of the open space,
and that sets us apart from all the other communities
around here and makes us one of the good places to live.
So I suggest to you that you move slowly,
do not give anything away, look at that other entrance,
let the county solve their own problems
if they really want this, but don't make us pay the price.
We didn't ask for this. Thank you
Thank you. Next speaker, please
Good morning. Mayor Silva council members city staff and members of our community
My name is Diane Crowley young. I have I moved to Walnut Creek nearly 30 years ago, and I spent
over a decade living on Tam Pico
Which connects turns into March banks which then Ken Ross would connect to the South private end which has no houses
facing it. So the private end is a completely different topic than driving through Kinross
where the speed bumps and the hills and the short driveways are. Anybody that lives in the area
knows to avoid that. So with that, I've always looked forward to celebrating milestone birthdays,
but when I discovered during COVID that I was officially considered elderly, it came as quite
surprise. I have more than average experience with the aging process but
when my mother-in-law's Alzheimer's progressed to the point where she could
no longer live with us we were shocked at how little support there is for the
elderly especially the frail. Even a person with resources what's available
can politely be described as piecemeal. When speaker announced their intention
to build a continuing care community in Walnut Creek we were elated. Then the
naysayers stepped in. To them, I would like to make several points. This is a
private property and the owner chose to have it zoned for residential
use over 30 years ago. The proposed development is in the county, not in the
city. The only reasonable access point is through the city via March banks and
then the private end of Kinross. We will all benefit from this development. We do
not want to end up with something like the Deer Hill debacle to happen in our
city. If you think it can't, you're not paying attention. If this is not approved,
the property will look like the development directly adjacent to the new
Pleasant Hill library. Please don't shoot yourselves in the foot. Thank you. Thank
you. The last two speakers are Maja Rocha and Troy Bourne.
Okay, Marissa and I work together.
My name is Troy Bourne,
and I work with Speaker Senior Development.
Our team builds and operates
continuing care retirement communities.
And the project that we're discussing tonight,
our communities offer a place to live,
a package of services, and long-term care
if needed by the residents of the community.
Our average age of our residents is typically close to 80.
And once they move to the community,
they live there for the rest of their lives,
making them inherently low-impact developments
relative to alternatives.
I recognize this morning that we're not here
to discuss the approval or the merits of the project itself,
which was unanimously approved after years
of environmental review by the county
and professional third-party consultants.
But I do want to say that in that process,
we partnered with the county to design a project
that honored neighbor setbacks far more generous
than the general plan designated use allowed for,
protects the Hale family's heritage trees,
allows for financial assistance
for future residents who may require it,
explicitly prohibits cut through traffic between Kinross and Seven Hills Ranch Road
and provides millions of dollars for community benefits despite the lack of material traffic
or park related impacts identified in the project's review.
We've appreciated the City's involvement in this multi-year process and believe your team's
comments over the last several years have led to meaningful enhancements in the quality of the
project. In the years of preparation and analysis and now the nearly full year since the project
has been approved. We've never received any direction from the city that indicated they
would prefer the care community to be accessed through Heather Farm Park or through the
Seven Hills Ranch Homestead Avenue neighborhood. This morning as you meet in closed session
to discuss the care community's access, I believe you'll find that the speaker team
has been very responsive to your request which include very significant additional benefits
to Walnut Creek neighborhoods to further resolve community concerns despite the project's low
impacts. We're excited to be your neighbors. For over 30 years, speaker has been building
and operating continuing care communities in California, all of them award winning.
We've never sold a community. We've never transferred operating responsibility of a
community. We are still neighbors in every community where we've ever built and opened
a community. And we're excited to be part of Walnut Creek. That's all I have to say
other than respond to one comment that was made for just for correction of something
to say, we did make an attempt to resolve the differences with the neighboring HOA.
We did not offer them a bunch of money.
They expressed to us that they incurred significant legal expense that was going to be borne by
their members, and we offered to reimburse them for the full legal expense that their
neighbors otherwise would have to bear.
That was the extent of the cash that we offered them.
The second, I think that might be misconstrued, is to think that we had offered to make significant
roadway improvements for our own benefit we did offer to make significant
roadway improvements at our cost but those roadways improvements were
directed by the city as those that were most likely to benefit the neighboring
communities thank you good morning my name is Marissa Rocha I am the sales
operations coordinator at the Glen of Heather Farm formerly Diablo Glen I've
worked for speaker developed communities for almost ten years of my career and
And I'm really proud of the work that we do, providing local seniors with comfortable
housing options, convenient services, amenities, and access to long-term care when needed.
I'm here representing the Walnut Creek team, who are currently off-site, presenting information
about this future retirement communities to almost 100 seniors just down the road.
For over 30 years, Speaker has brought award-winning communities to California, but the level of
interest in this particular project is unprecedented.
Both you and we are fortunate that Walnut Creek is home to many local retirees
who love the city, are looking forward to spending the rest of their lives here,
and almost 1,500 families from the city and neighboring communities
have placed their names on an interest list, all of whom have placed a financial
deposit in order to be considered for future
residency at this community, once constructed. I've personally spoken to
many of them and they're thrilled to have the opportunity to retire in the
community where they've worked, volunteered, raised their families and
this new retirement option gives them the ability to stay near their family
and friends as their needs for services change. To give you a sense of where
these seniors are coming from, I've provided a map and for each of those
dots, some of which are overlapping. It's a pre-construction depositor who's expressed
that interest to move into the community. So those folks are local and they want to
stay here. We've worked for the last several years with city, county staff, state and federal
agencies and these future residents to bring this needed retirement community to Walnut
Creek. Again, we appreciate the time and efforts that your team has spent reviewing our plans
And we look forward to working with you in the future.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Those are the last of the speakers I have.
If there is any last, this is last call.
Thank you.
All public comment is closed.
And we will now adjourn to closed session.
And as the city attorney explained,
this will come back in open session
at some point for open session conversation.
Thank you.