Good evening and welcome to the November 30th, 2023 meeting of the Walnut Creek Planning Commission.
Would the Secretary please take the roll, please?
Commissioner Lezak?
Here.
Commissioner Pickett?
Here.
Commissioner Anderson?
Here.
Vice Chair Strongman?
Here.
And Commissioners Reiser, Nating, and Warder absent.
And we do have a quorum, is that correct?
Yes.
Okay moving on to item number two of the consent calendar. We are going to open the consent
calendar for public comments. Everybody would be allowed two minutes but they please limit your
comments to only the consent calendar and the items on it. If you have other comments on anything
else on the agenda you will have the opportunity at a later point. So if anybody would like to make
a comment on the consent calendar please come forward to the podium and you will be given two
minutes each. Good evening, my name is Steve Curtis. I live at 1556 Gilboa Drive in Heather
Farms. I am speaking on myself. I am not speaking on the for the homeowners association. I'm an
architect of 50 years and also a former planning commissioner for the city of Martinez. First,
I want to would like to ask get one clarification. The proposal on the table today is to irrevocably
move law A into the right-of-way
or that is presently existing adjacent to it,
is that correct?
We're not, would the attorney care to comment on that?
The item before the commission
is a general plan consistency determination
as to the potential disposition of law A
and the offer, or acceptance of the dedication offer.
Okay, yeah.
So it's not to sell it to the adjoining developer.
Good.
The project and the transactions
are not before the commission.
No.
The action presently proposed is circular as
to the adjacent zoning in that the actions proposed
will effectively nullify the finding needed
to take the action.
The Board of Supervisors handed the city the right
to approve or deny this project in its present configuration
and by doing so, washed its hands of any responsibility
for its moving forward.
This means that the city's decision regarding lot A
will be either an affirmation or an acceptance or a denial
of everything wrong with this project.
This includes the flawed EIR, the unnecessary increase
in traffic on Ignatia Valley Road, commercial traffic
on Kinross that exceeds 8% grade and is within 10 feet
of neighboring homes, the removal of hundreds of trees,
and the removal of hundreds of thousands
of cubic yards of rock and dirt across city streets
to create the flat space for the project
destroying the Southern Hills.
The original tent up for Lot A was
to prevent through traffic from Southern Hills Ranch Road.
It was not foreseen that the source of the non-resident
commute traffic would be from within Southern Hills.
But that is the case in that commute and commercial traffic
from whatever source, needs to be prevented.
An irrevocable transfer of-
We're allowed only two minutes,
so thank you for your comments.
I believe we received your letter too, or email.
Hi there, I'm, oops, hello.
Okay, there we go.
I'm Carol Curtis, and I'm the president
of the Heather Farms HOA's board of directors,
and I did submit extensive public comments
ahead of this meeting,
Speaking on behalf of the HOA,
at this time I'd like to speak for myself.
Our city's planning commission is being asked
to determine general plan consistency,
assuming there are no project approvals
associated with this determination,
and that's just plain wrong.
This determination is needed
because of the county approved project, the Glenn,
a project which, by the way,
the county's own planning commission soundly rejected,
and I think the vote was six to one.
Ahead of the Board of Supervisors public consideration
of the project almost a year ago now,
the city submitted several public comments.
And comments which seem to have been ignored,
even though the project is squarely
within the city's sphere of influence.
One of the county's conditions of approval
required the developer to use the city street,
Kenross Drive, as the project's access.
That means that the county has in effect
delegated final approval for the project to the city.
And the city's already expressed concerns with the project.
As our planning commission, we, the residents of the city,
need you to protect our interests.
And we want you to make wise and prudent decisions
regarding land use.
Whether the Glen is the highest and best use for this parcel
is actually in your hands now.
and it's far more than an issue of general plan consistency.
Please delay any decision on anything that involves lot A.
There is litigation pending
and a significant and persistent public outcry.
Your decision is too important to rush.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Good evening, Jan Warren, 38-year resident of the Woodlands.
I want to thank all those who've been faithful and commenting
and participating the past two years.
Saying the county approved an EIRR for a project,
and that's the end of it, just not a true statement,
and I keep hearing from the applicant,
well, that happened, so everything's gold.
I wanna give some examples how that's not actually true.
And the first example is that
we have a urban limit line in the county,
and there was a housing project
proposed for Tassahara Parks,
And the County Planning Commission voted no.
And it was appealed and went to the
County Board of Supervisors.
And of course they approved it.
Well, on Tuesday of this past week,
they have rescinded that.
And so then we moved to the second example
of the Phillips Refinery Rodeo Renewed Project
that went through the CEQA process.
The, there again, the County Planning Commission said no.
It was appealed, it went to the Board of Supervisors.
I say, yay, let's do it.
And they are now, they were sued
and it's now in a revised EIR.
And I see a similar correlation with this project
because this is an incomplete, inadequate EIR
that needs to be redone and I'm asking y'all
to vote no tonight instead of being railroaded
by the out of your normal position
on how you look at projects.
This has been kind of piecemealed out,
hoping we all were doing something else in December
or Thanksgiving or the past two years matter of fact.
I wanna just remind us that the county projects
over here and all the traffic is over here
our city and it's just not a good resolution. Thank you. Thank you.
Good evening, Vice Chair Strongland, members of the Commission. My name is Bob
Simmons. I'm here tonight as president of the Walnut Creek Watershed Council and I
would like an extension of time beyond the minimum two minutes but I don't
think I will need more than three. I'm granted. Walnut Creek Watershed Council
of 501c3 California Public Benefit Nonprofit Corporation that seeks to improve the health
of the creeks in the watershed, the creeks in the wetlands, in the 146 square mile Walnut Creek
watershed. The city of Walnut Creek is entirely within that watershed. It also includes parts of
eight other cities and towns, and it's the largest watershed in Contra Costa County.
Others have commented on issues relating to CEQA. I want to focus all my remarks on wetlands.
A major interest of the watershed council is the protection and enhancement of wetlands.
Neither the staff report nor the draft resolution contain any reference to the
wetlands that are part of Lade and part of the right-of-way. We call these wetlands
the Kinross Wetlands. It is a seasonal wetland. In its EIR, the county recognized that seasonal
wetlands are rare in the central county area, specifically where we are. And they didn't say
this but we really should be looking more to protecting that rare resource than we have
in the past.
I will add one other, two other things.
One is that the City of Walland Creek in Chapter 3 of the General Plan 2025 speaks to the need
to restore and enhance creeks and wetlands goes with that.
It actually is, there's a reference to wetlands in it but I, so I don't know how you can approve
This particular resolution is a determination
which says it's conforming with the general plan
with the language in it regarding
protecting and enhancing creeks.
And lastly, the applicant must obtain a permit
from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
He's a little, one more minute.
Neither the staff report or the draft resolution
mention this barrier.
You have in the file back there the September 26th letter
from the water board that returns the application
being inadequate identifies several problems with it and has in the past
said we don't think Kinross entrance is going to work because of all the
problems related to the Kinross entrance from from the water board standpoint and
in the county cannot issue grading permits until there's a water board
permit because the action involves a seasonal wetland and that land is owned
by the city of Walnut Creek the city has an additional obligation to make sure
that nothing happens with regard to this wetland unless and until the Water Board
has issued a permit. And so my suggestion to you is a part of your
recommendation to the City Council be that the if the City Council for some
reason decides to go forward with this that the language be such that it it
doesn't take effect until after the grading permit has been issued. Thank you.
Thank you. Commissioners, happy holidays. My name is David Price. I'm with the law
of Holland and Knight, I want to confirm that you did in fact receive our letter, which
is generally very supportive of staff's recommendation here, and actually responds to a number of
the comments that were presented to you this evening by other commenters.
Very briefly, just the subject matter.
One, clearly all that is before you is the general plan consistency.
You are not actually approving any land use matters or transfers of property.
With regards to CEQA, there was a fully certified EIR, which you are bound by law to utilize
as the responsible agency.
The city is bound to comply with that.
There is no CEQA piecemealing going on here, the CEQA document covered the entirety of
the project, including impacts and mitigations for wetlands and creek areas as well.
And the fact that there is a letter from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, it's
very common that when one applies to agencies, you go through a process where the application
and goes back and forth, that's not unique
and it's not special for this project.
So that will all be resolved prior to grading
occurring in the area.
The current general plan does not contradict
what you are doing tonight.
It in fact is consistent with the proposed actions
and I would also point out that one of the additional
policies in the general plan in goal seven
and the quality of life chapter
is to promote strong community support systems
for families and individuals of all ages,
which if this project does go through,
will in fact be one of its purposes.
Anyway, glad to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is there anybody else would like to speak,
make comments on this project or a consent calendar?
Seeing none, I'm going to pull it back
to our commissioners.
And just before the commission proceeds,
I just wanted to make it really clear for the record
and for the commissioners of what is before you
is the general plan and conformance.
It is not the merits of the project
or the environmental document,
which the project and the EIR were approved
and certified by the county and the cities,
not the land use decision body for that.
Thank you.
And for my fellow commissioners,
I'd like to have either a motion to pull it
or a motion to adopt a consent calendar.
I would ask to pull the item so that we can discuss it.
Okay.
We don't need a, there really isn't a motion
to get one commissioner.
No, he's actually wants to pull the item.
Yes, so do I, so.
Okay.
I second.
Therefore, we will discuss, we had a public hearing,
public comments, and who would like to start?
A couple of things.
One is as has been pointed out, I'll do it one more time,
is that we're here not to decide whether to acquire
that small piece of land or to sell it
or to dedicate a right of way or anything like that.
We're here simply to find out whether those actions
would be consistent with the current general plan.
That's all.
It may be a step in a much longer, more complex sequence of things that result in other impacts,
but that is not what we're looking at today.
We're looking at whether it's consistent with the general plan.
Secondly, I would like to pursue a little further the question of the general plan's
thoughts on wetlands and, you know, whether that is a potential inconsistency.
And for that, if I have a chance to ask some questions of Mr. Simmons.
So, I'm curious, you mentioned the seasonal wetlands.
Can you give us an idea of where in relation to this project, by this project I mean Lot
A?
Okay, yes.
If you drive down Kinross Drive, there's a bulb there and the wetland begins immediately
below that bulb, that area is designated as a right-of-way for the city and just beyond
on the right-of-way and right at the fence line with the county is Lade and you know
that's a seasonal wetland in that whole area.
Did I answer the question?
I'm not sure.
So the bowl you're describing, that includes Lade or just beyond Lade?
First of all, there was something in the staff report that said that Lade was at the northern
side of the project.
I think it's actually at the southern end of the project,
side of the project.
And I think that may be throwing some things off.
But as you drive down Ken Ross Drive, you hit the bulb out.
If you get out of your car and you start walking
towards a fence that is, let's just say 100 feet away,
and don't hold me to that 100 feet,
the very first part, as you've seen in the maps,
is the right-of-way delineation that the city has
over that property.
And then you get within about a foot of the fence
that is the property line of the speaker property.
It is also the place where county jurisdiction starts
and city jurisdiction in.
That, there's a 50 foot long,
one foot wide strip right there
that is owned by the city.
And I'm sorry, and the wetlands you speak of,
the seasonal wetlands begin.
Right, right at the base because what happens is
that there is a drainage area coming out of that bulb out.
And so that whole area floods in the wintertime.
So basically what's currently the Northern end
of Kenross Drive?
Or is it from the Northern end of Kenross Drive
and it extends into lot A and I think it extends beyond that.
Okay, so it starts in the city property,
through lot A onto the county property.
Okay, that's what I was trying to clarify.
What one more question historically would Ken Ross drive itself been part of the wetlands going back before it was constructed I
Don't know the answer to that. Okay. Thank you
More questions. Oh, no. Mr. Pickett. Yeah, I had a
Question on the
resolution
There was a comment about
How extension of Kinross would improve the maintain transportation network
Provides mobility for all ages part citing the general plan. I don't see how it does that
How we can say that this is improving transportation in the city of Walla Creek
I'm sorry, can my Chip Griffin principal planner city won a great can you repeat that?
Yeah, so the question was on the draft resolution on page four it said it's
consistent with goal three of the transportation
chapter general plan maintain a transportation network provides mobility for all ages and
ability for all areas of the community and I don't see how
This really does anything for transportation transportation is fine
Regardless of that little one-foot strip of land. I got anything that want a creek is doing
It's making that little one-foot strip of land
Enhance the transportation of the city of Walnut Creek
Well in in terms of it being in terms of this being compliant with the general plan
It it's somewhat does apply because there's a general there is general plan policy that talks about
providing
Providing the road networks from from single-family to multifamily to downtown and I think that's listed in the staff report as well
So it would it would be the furtherance of that policy, but we're not considering the project next door
we're only considering this piece of property and
You know, is it considered is it consistent with John? I don't see how that supports. Well, it's it's it's there's there's two things here
It's a consistency with the general plan
And in that we staff did provide a prepare a
Presentation I do I don't know if you wanted to see it and we would we would kind of go through some of these things
Sure. How long is it?
Probably too long, but we can get we can get we can get right to it
But it might help
brand understand the location of the one foot strip in the wetlands that we're also going to talk some more about
Maybe you can use this exhibit to show
Identify where the wetlands are there will be there's a couple of there's some context in here
Okay, so we are here to talk about the Glenn and Heather farm. I'm
I'm assuming we did officially pull this off consent. Yes
Okay, so the scope here is consider whether or not the following action would be consistent with the
2025 general plan the current general plan and it's two things
It's a potential conveyance of that 50 square foot strip the one foot strip
of real property at the end of the Kenrosts,
and it's for the conveyance of that strip, right, the sale.
And then formal acceptance of that irrevocable offer
of dedication for the public improvement,
which assumes a roadway.
And that's the link to your question, Bob.
There's no other issues.
actions or considerations for the Planning Commission on this item.
A little context.
Here is Ken Ross Drive right here, and here is the bulb that Mr. Simmons was speaking
of, and then this would be Ken Ross Terrace, another subdivision.
The 50-foot, or the right-of-way extension, the unimproved right-of-way extension is right
in this area here.
and we'll take a closer look at that in a minute.
And other context is, this is the Heather Farm,
Heather Farm HOA area, and then, like I said,
Kenrass Terrace, and there's a boundary right in here
that's for the city and the county,
and we'll take a look at that right now.
Oh, let's go backwards.
So the project would be, I mean,
the elephant in the room is the Glenn at Heather Farm,
and it's a gated community,
it's 354 independent senior living units,
there's a medical care, there's single family homes,
there's apartments, and there's assisted living.
It is in unincorporated county.
There's approximately 30 acres.
Some of the names that this project
or the developers have gone by
is Speaker Senior Continuing or the Glen and Heather Farm.
It's also known as Seven Hills Ranch.
Little background timeline,
county approved this thing in 2022.
Just this week, earlier this week,
the zoning administrator approved removal of two oak trees.
We are here tonight for general plan conformance.
And then on December 19th,
the council is gonna consider that purchase and sale
and the acceptive of the right-of-way dedications.
A little context.
So Lade, let's see the red strip right down there.
Where's my guy?
Right there.
Let's get an arrow.
There it is.
Lotte is located right between the end
of the unimproved Ken Ross right of way
and the city boundary.
The city boundary is this line here, you can see it.
So the whole of Lotte,
and we'll take a close up look at this in just a second,
but the Walnut Creek land use plan is multi-family,
let's take a look at that.
We've got multi-family low here,
and then we've got single family low here,
but around the project, adjacent to the project,
is multifamily low.
And the Walnut Creek's general plan land use map
shows this unincorporated area
because it is an art sphere of influence
at single family low.
Here's a closeup of lot A.
This is what we're talking about.
Is this red colored strip of land,
the conveyance of that strip of land
consistent with the general plan?
It's and like it says, they're completely
within the city boundary.
Compliance, so both the right-of-way
and lot of air designated multifamily.
We just talked about this a little bit.
The city properties adjacent to the right-of-way
are multifamily.
Multifamily category land use intends
to accommodate moderately higher densities
to serve as a transition between single family neighborhoods
and commercial or higher density residential neighborhoods.
Bob, that was that policy that I was speaking of.
The unincorporated property to the north
is recognized as single family residential
on our land use map.
And it is within our sphere of influence.
A little bit about zoning,
the properties within the city limits,
those multifamily properties are zoned PDs,
there's PD Kenross Terrace and PD for Heather Farm.
And there it is there.
further on the general plan compliance.
There is no development proposed, as you know,
but the
land would ultimately be used as an extension if the city accepts that irrevocable
offer of dedication for that right away and
approves a purchase and sale agreement of Lade.
Again, the Lade is in the sphere of influence, as we know, and finally there's no goals, policies,
principles in the general plan that would prohibit the conveyance of Lade, or the
city's acceptance of that dedication. And the last bullet just says that that
this action wouldn't change any of the surrounding land uses in any way. As far
as CEQA goes, this action here is, we've we found to be categorically exempt
through the common sense exemption.
There's no decisions or associated
with this determination.
No action is being taken.
There's no development project.
However, the county did certify an environmental impact report
that analyzes impacts, including Kinross Drive Extension,
across the right-of-way, as well as mitigation measures
to address such impacts.
I hope you don't ask me what those mitigation measures are,
because I myself don't know.
I'm not sure that anybody in the room does,
hopefully somebody does.
But we can, as a city, adopt those mitigation measures
if and when the city council takes those actions.
With that, staff would recommend
that the Planning Commission moved
to adopt that draft resolution in your packet
to determine that both the actions listed on this slide
are in conformance with the general plan,
And that's the potential conveyance of the lot A
with the purchase and sale agreement
and the acceptance of the offer of dedication
for the improvements.
I'm sure you have questions of staff.
If I could just add to Chip's presentation
on the CEQA portion, so the updated resolution
that's before you has revised the CEQA compliance section
to focus more on the EIR that the county has certified.
And also that with, as a part of that resolution,
there's an attachment referring to the sections in the EIR,
which where this portion of the land is referenced in the EIR
as a part of the evaluation for the project.
And in that list, there is pointing to the various
mitigation measures that are incorporated in the EIR,
which includes items that are for biological impacts,
pre-construction surveys, construction management,
noise reduction, and things like that.
That's a part of the packet for the Planning Commission.
Thank you, and thank you for your presentation.
Questions for staff?
Thank you, Mr. Griffin, for your presentation.
I'm gonna pick up where others have left off
and kinda wanna get back into this issue of the wetlands.
This wasn't something I really picked up on
as well as some of the other items in my review.
Could you come back to the exhibit earlier in your slideshow
where you showed the property, the sliver, this one,
go back, that's the one.
So this exhibit shows wetland area one.
I don't know if you know the answer,
but do we believe that the wetland is mapped
just in that area, or is it possible
that this little red strip,
which is the subject of all of this,
includes a portion of that wetland?
By looking at this map, it doesn't look like it does, although it's very close.
But again, I'm not absolutely sure, I'm just using this map.
Okay.
I mean, we could continue this as we go, but my point of this is that, to the degree we
understand from your staff presentation and staff report, that the city owns this property
and that whether the city, what the city does with this property and how consistent with
the general plan that is the sole conversation we're having right now.
So I didn't, after looking and reviewing older versions of the general plan, put all that
aside and said the only thing that matters is the current general plan.
And right now I pulled it up and I'm just looking at goal number three in the current
general plan.
And it says maintain and enhance the area's creek system, their riparian environments,
and their recreational amenities.
And there's things like action 3.1, 0.2 through land acquisition or conservation easements,
creator improve riparian corridors, riparian lands within parks, wetlands and buffer zones.
So I'm trying to balance, if you will, certain goals, because there's always inconsistencies
with these goals as we make these determination decisions, whether or not we are having a
conflict with this particular goal and whether this particular section is
inconsistent and so I didn't understand all that in the original staff report
and I'm not even clear looking at this exhibit that's a problem if one were to
tell me that this entire parcel was a mapped wetland jurisdictional
delineation what-have-you then I might consider its transfer for a
or transportation use to be inconsistent.
In this case, it's unclear to me.
Don't know if you know the answer to that
and it may be that we'd be looking for Mr. Price
maybe to speak in his research.
Maybe Mr. Simmons has additional research.
But again, I'm just trying to understand,
I think there's a follow up in terms of the consistency here
of that particular item.
If I may, the sale of the land is not really tied to the environmental analysis and the
project that you have before you, and the decision that you have before you is really
just about general plan conformity.
So what staff has noted is that does the sale of land and the acceptance of the right-of-way,
I mean, there are no goals and policies that would prohibit that in the general plan.
And so that's what you're looking at today.
We're not really rehashing the environmental analysis.
Like, that's all coming.
Yeah, and I guess my point had nothing to do
with the environmental analysis.
I was really just looking at the current general plan
and that one goal, goal three and its action items
that related to the natural environment
and specifically mentioned wetlands.
And I was just trying to figure out
whether there was a consistency problem there.
And as general plans tend to be,
The goal is fairly high level and fairly vague,
and there's not enough information here
for me to know exactly where the wetland is.
So I'm just trying, I'm looking for additional guidance
to help us make that consistency decision.
It's my sense that the design of the roadway
and it's making it narrower, which they have done,
and the mitigation measures,
which I know there are some for wetlands,
I just don't know exactly what they are,
would speak to that.
And so as we go,
because I know there's others who want to speak on this,
and I'll step back here in just a second.
But one of the things that I liked about the comment
that Mr. Simmons made was that maybe,
if we're comfortable with the consistency of this,
that there could be some recommendation to counsel
that those other conditions of approval
related to those items to make sure
that it's, that this consistency is maintained,
be part of the recommendation if they do move forward.
So with that, I will step back and I'll hand this back
to my fellow commissioners for other questions and comments
and see if you want to bring others forward to respond.
Right now we're only questioning staff.
So, Chip, is there, no, sorry, sir.
We're only gonna talk to staff right now.
No, we're not right now.
My apologies for joining the discussion late.
Assistant City Manager, Terry Kilgore.
We do have additional information on what was studied
and the wetland determination.
So we do have the applicant present
if you'd like to explore that matter further,
but suffice it to say,
it's made it through its sequence process
with mitigations identified as CHIP noted.
So if you'd like more detail,
we can have the applicant come and speak to it
much greater effect. Do you want that or do we want to continue just with staff
right now? You know I I don't think that we need additional SECOR environmental
all I'm focused on is the consistency of the general plan I'm just trying to to
get to that one goal and I think I'm I think we're on the same page in terms of
what our question is. I just don't know that that we have exactly that answer
And maybe we'll need to kind of discuss this
a little bit more amongst ourselves.
Do you have any more questions for staff?
Yeah, I do.
It's kind of on the same lines though,
but so is there any reason why you didn't include
some references to the wetlands elements
of our general plan in regard in the draft resolution?
I will weigh in on that.
and I would look to our assistant city attorney.
Our direction from our attorneys is that we could rely on
and should legally rely on the EIR process
that the county followed.
And so there was extensive analysis of the wetlands
and if this was a wetland.
And so the mitigations identified in the larger EIR
are considered as part of the larger project approvals
that the county went under.
And so, you know, that's how we proceeded in this process.
So we did not reopen the wetland analysis
because that's not actually in our purview.
So I understand the question of is it at a wetland?
And I understand how it links
to the general plan as you're raising,
but we did not go back and relook at that analysis.
And I would look to the assistant city attorney
to weigh in further.
Yeah, and just to add to that comment,
the goals that Commissioner Lizaki identified,
they are served in regards to the larger project
because of the mitigation measures
that I previously identified.
They do address the wetlands issue,
the riparian habitat issue.
For example, there is a mitigation measure
in the biological analysis section
about delineating any riparian habitats and wetlands
as a part of the project, carrying out the project.
And so those things are encompassed in the project approval
and the certification of the EIR itself.
And so what we're looking at here is really the conveyance
of that property and accepting the dedication
and how those actions specifically relate
to the conformance of the general plan.
Thank you.
Any more questions?
I just need to kind of fall back up with you
on that very good thought, thank you.
Again, there's responding to the other public comment
about sort of the circular nature of this.
And there is a little of that here
because we're not studying the project.
We're studying the consistency of this decision
against our general plan.
And what I just heard is the satisfaction
of the conditions of approval for a project
that we're not considering makes this decision consistent.
And so to the degree that we are comfortable
that this would be consistent,
we can only be comfortable that it's consistent
when those conditions of approval are satisfied
if I'm following the logic that you just made.
So that would mean to me that I would suggest
there be some recommendation to council
that if they decided to move forward
with the transfer of land,
they could only move forward the transfer of land
and we could only make the finding of the consistency
of the general plan when those conditions of approval
are satisfied by the project.
So again, that sort of sets this,
I know their project is now conditioned on this transfer,
but we would then have to in this way almost
condition the project back on them to satisfy
their conditions prior to the transfer.
That's my suggestion based on the feedback
you just provided.
Well, I'll just clarify that.
So you're not determining if the project is consistent,
right, the action we're looking at is conveyance
and acceptance of a dedication.
And what you're looking at is, for example,
in the staff report, speaking about whether or not
the conveyance and dedication would change the land uses
around the property that issue.
And so when we say that CEQA has addressed
the items that are brought, it is not to say
that because the project was conditioned in certain ways,
then now it is consistent is because the potential use
and the potential purposes of the conveyance
and of the dedication would be consistent
because of what they will ultimately result in.
It's not that the commission is looking at the project
and saying that, you know, that particular development
is consistent or not depending on the conditions.
Yeah, I'm following you.
And again, I'm not thinking about the project at all.
I'm just thinking about this itty bitty little strip of land
and whether or not there's seasonally some water
that comes across it, and whether having
some car trans go across that as some city roadway,
irrespective of what's on the other side,
is inconsistent with our goal of protecting the environment
to have this roadway go across
what may be a seasonal wetland.
And what I'm hearing is it's not necessarily inconsistent
and it certainly wouldn't be
once these mitigations are done at that point,
the roadway is gonna protect and enhance
in whatever way the adjacent wetland.
And I'm totally comfortable with that, if that's the case,
but that again sets it up for whatever that thing
that needs to happen there is what I'm looking for.
And again, this is a pretty high level
because I don't have completely all the information.
I'm trying to find a way to be consistent
because I have no issue with what we're focused on.
I'm just trying to focus on that one goal.
Yes, it sounds like that you're thinking
that there's two pieces of the consistency analysis.
One is that there are no goals and policies
that would prohibit it.
And at the same time that the mitigation measures,
particularly in the biological section,
would help implement the goal
of maintaining biological resources.
Is that correct?
So you're kind of relying on both,
that there are no policies that would prohibit
and then through the implementation.
That's right.
Because if I felt like that the use
of that little parcel as transportation
prohibited this particular goal,
then we couldn't make that finding.
There's not enough information in front of us to say that.
That's not what I'm trying to say.
So thank you for clarifying.
Now what you said is where I'm at.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And Chip pointed out the last bullet on this slide
that part of the action is that the city would adopt
the relevant findings and mitigation measures.
And so that's kind of how you draw the link back
to the county action to what the city council
would be asked to do.
Okay, thank you.
I've taken enough time.
There's others here that have a lot of other things to say.
Any more questions or comments?
So I'm not done yet.
So I've heard twice that the action we're taking tonight
does not cause any development to happen or doesn't change.
But if we take the action tonight,
then the significant change can occur.
So you can't separate them.
And our action tonight is going to contribute
to a significant change on the adjoining property that
isn't in the city of Walnut Creek.
If we don't do it, if the city doesn't accept it
or doesn't sell it, then that development doesn't happen.
So you can't separate the two issues.
And that's, I've really struggled with that.
Actually, a point of clarification on that.
There is actually an alternative exit
that's proposed in the EIR.
Well, there you go.
So the alternative that was studied,
or excuse me, the primary choice was actually
to go out Seven Hills Ranch Road.
And so the Kinross extension was an alternative.
If you spend time in the area, what you know
is that going out Seven Hills Ranch Road
dumps you on to Walnut Boulevard,
which then to get to a major arterial
takes you out right past WCI.
Your alternative otherwise is to go out Cherry Lane
and kind of zig through a windy little street
to get to treat.
And so, you know, as CEQA does, there's the analysis,
and then there's sort of the practical realities.
And so the practical reality for our community
is that that also has some effects that are not ideal,
given the location of the school.
And so there is another alternative
that would allow this project to go forward.
going on that path, I don't want to call it a road,
going on that path also has some impacts
in that part of this process is the city
has been negotiating benefits for the community
and construction management trade offs
that would also in many ways benefit our community.
if we, if this does not go forward on Kinross,
what happens, it does, the project can still go forward.
It's just that the benefits to our community
and what has been negotiated would not proceed.
What has been negotiated?
That's what, it's not done yet,
so that's what will be presented to council on the 19th.
So that not being done, isn't this premature?
No, actually, because what we're asking you to do
is contingent, so ultimately the decision lies
with the council.
Can you take me back to the timeline slide?
So the tree permit approval contingent
on the council taking action.
Should there be an appeal, as I'm sure Chip shared with you,
that appeal would go to the council.
And all of this is contingent on the council
looking at this in its totality and saying,
yes, we think those community benefits are worth it.
And, you know, we think this is the right choice.
If they don't say that, then it goes back
to where the applicant then goes
and moves back towards the Seven Hill Ranch Road exit.
And I just want to make it clear for the commission,
this step right now, this is essentially a recommendation
to the City Council as a determination on the general plan.
And so this determination does not approve
the person's state of agreement does not accept the dedication, does not do the reverse.
So this is really you're looking at what's before you and you're deciding if it conforms
with the general plan.
And that is a recommendation essentially that's forwarded to the city council as part of their
decision.
What happens if it doesn't get approved tonight?
If the planning commission does not approve this resolution?
If the planning commission, so this is, let me back up a little bit, this is a state law
requirement.
Any time the city is disposing of or acquiring real property interest, this is the step is
is required and what state law requires is that the planning commission forward its report
to the city council so either if you make a positive recommendation or a positive determination
of conformance tonight or if you don't that just you know that gets forward to the city
council as a part of their decision on the actual purchase sale and the dedication offer.
So we could say it conforms but we have reservations or some stipulations that you consider the
about Seven Hills Ranch Road?
I would advise the Commission to just focus on the determination and not
comments on the project options or mirrors because that's not really
before you tonight. What if we wanted to add something to the resolution or
change something in the resolution? With respect to the general plan
conformance that is within your authority to do that. Okay and if that
can't be done tonight and has to come back to us, what happens? Well if our
Our recommendation is for you to make a decision for the commission tonight.
If you, the commission feels that you need more time, you have the authority to continue
it and that would just come back to a subsequent meeting, but our recommendation is for you
to make that determination tonight.
And if I may chime in on why we're asking or we're pursuing the steps we are in the
order we are to answer the question of isn't this premature.
The reality is there's certain things that before we know
if it's even something the council should consider,
we've got a couple of process steps
that we needed to understand.
Would the tree permit approval process happen or not?
Would the Planning Commission find it in conformance or not?
And so we actually wouldn't go to council
without having done those process check-in steps.
And then ultimately, again, the council could decide,
No, we, you know, even if this body said yes,
we think it conforms and the tree permits are a yes,
the council could still say no to the project.
So it really was making sure we had done
all the preliminary check-ins that we,
the council needs as information to make an informed decision.
Any more questions to staff?
How about a motion?
Make a proposal.
Okay.
If we can get onto a motion.
The second finding in the resolution says,
the city may adopt the findings and mitigation measures
from the Lead Agency Counties EIR as needed
for any related city actions in relation
to any impacts of the proposed Kenross Drive extension
across the right-of-way
to provide access to the project site.
And therefore, they don't need to prepare
a separate environmental analysis.
So since they could adopt,
city may adopt those findings.
with regard to the watershed.
What I'd like to propose is some wording in that finding
indicating that it would be appropriate
with respect to the mitigation measures and findings
on the watershed area
that the city should adopt those findings.
Okay.
perhaps I mean we're not actually being asked to direct the City Council I
understand that but or perhaps just indicate that that those findings and
then more importantly mitigation measures are important to our
interpretation of consistency with the general plan. So you're saying that the
implementation of the mitigation measures is part of your consistency
No, I'm saying it's more of a recommendation to the City Council or a note to the City Council that
the implementation of those is important to and the existence of those mitigation measures in the EIR is
important to our finding consistency if we find that. Great. Thank you.
I would recommend if that's what you desire that just be forwarded as a
comment from the Planning Commission relating to your
Recommendation because the what's in the resolution is actually you're you're making that sequel determination on the basis of the year. I
Think we should strike the reference to the transportation because I don't believe that's true
that's on page four second paragraph the whereas I
don't think it is
consistent with the general plan pitch for
Is that a friendly amendment that is being suggested by?
Commissioner pick it to the motion
Do we actually have a motion do we have a motion you know where?
Are you craft? I don't know that we have a motion yet. We're we're we're discussing. I think
as a group that
The items to be in the final motion, right? And is that where you're where you think you are Bob? Yes
That's the way I was looking at it. Yes, we're talking about it
So so we're the way do I understand if we follow through with city attorney's recommendation?
Commissioner Anderson's comment would be simply a advice to the City Council independent of
the resolution.
Correct, yes.
The resolution, so your recommendation would not be a change.
I'm suggesting a change of that one item because I just don't follow it.
And if it's in there, I can't, I don't support the motion.
That's my only objection to the motion.
I think the other comment on the, I think the Creek mitigation and all that stuff, we
I don't have, quite honestly, you get a 700-page document.
I couldn't find the mitigation in there,
and the staff can't tell me what it is.
So I have a little bit of trouble
with the whole notion of it,
but I could probably go along with it.
So I have a little bit of feedback
for both of those things, and that is,
I agree that there's some question, some reach, perhaps,
about that use of the transportation goal,
and how we get there, particularly in this context
because that's project relevant,
it speaks to the specific project
and not the consistency of the actual land transfer.
I also don't know that it in and of itself
adds any value to the resolution per se.
So I have no problem removing that whereas section.
With respect to Commissioner Anderson's suggestion,
I strongly feel that we should include that.
I felt like that that was an additional piece
of information that came out of the public comment today
that I thought was very helpful
and that the council should include that
in their consideration, but I don't agree with you
that I don't know that it makes it into the resolution.
So I'm comfortable with both of those suggestions.
And unless there's any other feedback,
I'm gonna move to motion to approve the resolution
with that change to the removal of the whereas
and the added language of the suggestion,
which perhaps Claire, you could draft for us.
Let me suggest that something along the lines of,
it was important to our consideration
that the City Council has the ability
to adopt those mitigations
as far as the wetlands preservation is concerned.
Perhaps we can insert that at the end of that paragraph
or finding number two to state that.
Or it could be communication of the council.
I'm sorry?
Could be the cover letter to the council, if you will.
It doesn't need to be in as part of the finding. But just to I just want to make sure the council is informed
Okay, so that doesn't slip through a crack and they don't adopt it something that really is necessary
okay, so what I'm hearing from the commissioners is you would like to approve or adopt the resolution with the change on
on page four to the warehouse clause with respect to transportation and also to forge the City Council a comment that
The mitigation measures regarding what lands are in riparian habitats is an important consideration for the planning commission
yeah, and and you know my
Slightly stronger wording of said suggestion would be the the concept that that those
mitigation measures
That the council should consider making those mitigation measures required prior to the transfer of the property
In terms of timing of the mitigation measures,
those don't need to be implemented
until the project, correct?
It's not that mitigation measures
get implemented prior to the transfer.
Nor does the transfer of property, right?
I mean, there's nothing that says
that they have to transfer the property at this moment, right?
But the timing of the mitigation measures
isn't tied to the transfer of the property.
It's just that the mitigation measures
would ultimately be implemented
as part of the project development.
the mitigation measures are separate and part of the project
and the transfer of the property is a separate transaction
and the council can decide to have whatever conditions
associated with their purchase and sale agreement
that they choose to negotiate with the other party.
And I'm just suggesting that that's something
that they should consider.
Okay, great, thank you.
Can we summarize that motion
so that I'm clear on it myself?
Okay. So the first item is that you would adopt the resolution.
That's the updated version that's in the packet and with the change to the
whereas clause about transportation goals and that you would forward a common
to the city council to state that, um, the mitigation measures relating to
wetlands and riparian habitats were important considerations for the planning
commission and that, um, it would be appropriate for the council to consider
them as a part of their final action on the transaction purchase and sale agreement I'm
fine with that and I will agree that that is my motion I'll second it a case but secretary
please call the roll commissioner leezak yes commissioner pickett yes commissioner Anderson
yes vice chair strongman yes and commissioner riser nating in warder absent this motion
passes. Thank you. Moving on finally to public comments. This is the time where we allow
public comments for anything that's not on the agenda. So if anybody would like to make
a public comment that's regarding anything that's not on the agenda, please come forward.
Seeing none. I believe we're going to close public comments
Moving on to our public
public hearings and projects
2079 Mount Diablo zoning text amendment. Good. This beyond consent calendar
Great good evening commissioners
We are here tonight to consider a zoning text amendment to the office commercial zoning designation
for the specific site known as 2079 Mount Diablo.
Just to orient you to the site,
the 25,000 square foot parcel is located
on the south side of Mount Diablo
and consists of a 7,200 square foot motel,
as you can see on the left.
The site is within the downtown,
west end town specific plan boundaries
and bounded by retail office and other commercial uses.
St. Mary's School is located to the east
and 680 interstate freeway and residential uses
are located to the west.
The specific change is an expansion of note L21
of the office commercial zone to allow residential
by right when there's at least 20% affordable units.
This allowance is part of implementing the housing element by allowing by right housing
on sites reused from previous housing elements.
So this is a recommendation to the City Council regarding the CEQA and the approval of the
zoning text amendment.
The recommendation that we have before you is that the Plan Commission provide a recommendation
to the City Council to dot the resolution determining that the zoning code text amendment
has been appropriately analyzed by the EIR for the West downtown specific plan and to
adopt the zoning text amendment.
Staff is available to answer any questions that you may have.
Thank you for the presentation.
Any questions of staff?
Okay.
Mr. Pickett.
Yeah, is there an applicant on this or is this something that we're just doing to bring
this in compliance with the West downtown specific plan?
So we the city is the applicant.
Yes, and it's really implementation of the housing element.
Okay, and so we're changing the density
to 56 dwelling units per acre.
And this is roughly a half an acre, right?
It's 0.58 acres.
So I just try to get the number,
make sure I understand the numbers on it.
Yes.
So where they can put 33 units on this property
if they include 20% affordable.
Hold on one second.
Am I doing that right?
Let's try to figure out what this results in basically
for the community for the...
So this is a slide that shows the number of units,
so yes, it would be 32 units.
So it would be 32 units?
Yes.
Okay, and then of the 32, 20%?
So...
Or is it, yeah, 20% of the 32?
Yes, so if affordable.
And it also said very, said low or very low income.
Is there a ratio on that?
This is just what we, this is just what we have.
One and six of the other?
No, this is just what we have in the housing only
in terms of what we think could potentially be developed
as housing units get developed over the eight year cycle.
I mean, we'll see how the arena gets met.
Okay, but say I'm a developer
And I have no intention of developing this property,
but if somebody does,
and I'm just anticipating the questions they're gonna ask.
Okay, so 20%, 50% sometimes .58 acres is 6.5 units.
Now do you round that up or down?
And if it's, first of all, do you round it up or down?
The number of units that would,
we would round it up if that's,
I think that's the city's practice if we round it up.
It doesn't specify a ratio of low and very low income.
And isn't that kind of vague?
Well, so for context, this table is a projection
in the housing element document.
So this is the reason why it's seven plus 25 is 32
is because that's the projection that the city
put together with respect to the site.
And this is a part of the housing elements effort
in analyzing the development potentials for the site.
So this is not requiring seven very low units
and 25 low, it's a projection.
And what the zoning change would do is that
if the project contains the 20% affordable,
it would be by right up to that density
resulting in 32 units.
But the zoning change, I'm reading it here,
I think I'm reading this right,
multifamily residential uses are allowed
specifically at this site at a 56 dollar units per acre
when at least 20% are affordable
to low and very low income households.
That's vague, it's undefinitive.
Yes, so there's.
I don't think you can do that in a zoning ordinance.
No, there's flexibility.
So as long as 20% are within the affordability context
which is low or very low and whatever combination
of very low or low.
So as a city, we don't care.
From the city's perspective,
and this state of California's perspective,
there's flexibility within the 20th.
I'm used to seeing a very definitive flight.
It has to be 40% low, 60% very low,
or I'm used to seeing that in other cities' ordinances.
I'm wondering why we aren't,
and obviously, I was gonna go for the low
instead of the very low.
Yes.
We're not gonna get it, so we don't care.
Yeah, 20% just needs to be affordable,
and this is across the state.
Okay, but not moderate.
Not moderate affordable, low.
And not very low, because to Bob's point,
you'll probably never get to very low.
Okay, all right, so it's a small deal.
We're talking to 33 units or 32 units,
and we're looking at the difference of one, very low or low.
It's a small difference to the city of Walnut Creek,
but I was curious as to why that wasn't definitive.
Okay, that's all I have.
just a quick follow-up and that is did the city contact the owner to find out
their position on on this change? So what this changes is allowing additional
uses so we're not taking away uses so we felt that that would be okay and we
also did notice the property and all the neighbors within 300 feet as is our
So, in concept, if they opened their mail, they knew that their property was being rezoned
without their permission, but, or having additional zoning added on to it, but no one contacted
them to inform them or ask them their position.
Not specifically, no.
Okay.
Thank you.
Any other questions, staff?
Okay, therefore, we will open for public comments.
If anybody in the audience would like to comment on this item, please come forward.
And seeing none.
We will close public comments and bring it back to the Council Commission for more comments
or possibly a motion.
I already motioned once tonight.
I think I made my own.
Go ahead.
Move that we adopt the resolution as provided recommending the City Council determine zoning
code text amendment is consistent with the adopted program environmental impact report
and adopt an ordinance to implement the proposed zoning tax amendment.
I'll second it.
Motion and a second.
Please call the roll.
Commissioner Lezak.
Yes.
Commissioner Pickett.
Yes.
Commissioner Anderson.
Yes.
Vice Chair Strongman.
Yes.
And Commissioner Reiser, Nating, and Ward are absent.
This motion passes.
Thank you.
And moving on to item five, commission considerations.
Do we have any considerations?
None at this time.
Moving on to number six.
Any commission member or staff reports or announcements?
Seeing none at this point in time,
we will adjourn the meeting.
Thank you very much.