Walnut Creek City Council - Walnut Creek Meetings

Transcript

Warning: This transcript is automatically generated by machine and may contain errors, including misheard words, misattributed speakers, and omitted passages. Always listen to the audio or video recording before assuming the transcript correctly reflects what was said. Do not rely on the transcript alone for quotation, reporting, or any other purpose where accuracy matters.

I'm calling the good evening, everybody. I'm Llewella Hasku, this year's mayor of Walnut Creek. This is my first meeting since I rolled back into being mayor. Forgive me if it's a little rocky. I'm relearning the job. We want to welcome you here to the Tuesday, December 19th regular meeting of the Walnut Creek City Council. Before we do anything else, let's rise to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. May we have a roll call of the council?

Councilmember Francois? Here. Councilmember Silva? Here. Councilmember Will? Here. Mayor Pro Tem Darling? Here. Mayor Haskew? Here.

The next on the agenda is the consent calendar and does any council member have any item

that they wish to have a conversation about?

Yes?

Well, not a conversation, but item M.

Item M, okay.

Anybody else?

Seeing none, I will now ask if there's anybody in the audience that wishes to make a public

comment.

Hi there.

Okay, would you kind of work your way over there, please.

Have any written comments been sent into the, regarding public comment?

An addendum to, an addendum for item 2i, an addendum for item 2m.

Okay, so if anybody is going to make a motion, they need to pay that attention.

All right, Jan, would you come forward and state your name in case I don't remember it

and give us your comments?

Sure.

Thank you.

Jan Warren, Woodlands in 1985.

Anyhow, I have a comment under R3.

It says, each city and county should consider creating a dedicated affordable housing commission

comprised of a multidisciplinary team of diverse citizens

and led by a current non-elected city expert in planning.

Each commission would be charged with providing a community

voice in the process and helping to identify and address

obstacles that hinder the development of affordable housing

projects in their community.

And our response to this is that it

It wouldn't be implemented.

I would just like to know why I don't consider

either the Walnut Creek Homeless Task Force,

the Planning Commission, or the Trinity Center

to fill the job as described, thanks.

Thank you, Jan.

We will have some kind of response

at the end of the consent calendar system.

Is there any, you have, we will,

does anybody wanna make a motion?

Please, desperately.

I can do it.

I move to adopt the 13 items of the consent calendar

with the amendments for item I and item M.

Okay, and was that the one Kevin wanted to?

That is, and I can just quickly speak to that

because it's not actually in the agenda report

that came out originally,

and that is that I was appointed or reappointed

to the League of Cities Environmental Quality Policy Committee,

so that is one of my assignments as well,

And that is listed on the addendum now.

And as council member Silva had just mentioned,

that motion includes that and therefore I'll second all of it.

Okay, and now we need a roll call vote.

Council member Silva.

Aye.

Council member Wilk.

Aye.

Council member Francois.

Aye.

Mayor Pro Tem Darling.

Aye.

Mayor Haskew.

Aye.

Motion carries unanimously.

And we still have measure J, I mean item J still out there?

Or do you wish to, city manager would you please

respond to measure.

Item J.

Sure, Dan Bakshi, City Manager, speak to this briefly.

To clarify this evening, the only item

that was for your council's consideration

was the fourth recommendation that was inadvertently omitted

when we responded back in September,

so we are not revisiting the overall report

and all the other findings and recommendations.

It was just to make a correction to an oversight

and send that off to the grand jury.

Thank you.

All right.

I hope that answers that question.

Next on the agenda is public communications.

This portion of the meeting is reserved

for comment items not on the agenda.

Under the Brown Act, the council cannot act

on items raised during public communications,

but may respond briefly to statements made

or questions posed, request clarification,

or refer the item to the staff.

Consistent with section 9.5 of the City Council handbook,

30 minutes total will be allocated at this time

for public communications for items not on the agenda.

Additional time for public communications

for items not on the agenda will be provided

at the end of the meeting if necessary.

It is five after six and if I add 30 minutes to that,

gets us to 35 yeah 636. So I'll be watching the clock and if there's

anybody here for public comment not on the agenda. Okay I'm not oh are we did we

have one? Yes okay. Hello my name is Barbara Yannis I've been a resident of

Walnut Creek since 1996. Tonight I wanted to talk about consent calendar. During

every council meeting, there's a consent calendar,

a list of items that are approved by council.

On July 16th of 1996, city council unanimously approved

the pros commissions recommendation for the development

and operation of Lime Ridge,

which included the Rancho Paraiso agreement

with Timberleaf Trail to be pedestrian only.

No horses, no bicycles, no trailhead to be placed there,

not advertised as an entrance.

You could find this in public records.

Then in February, 1997, the Prose Commission approved,

accepted the final phase, same thing,

pedestrians only for Timberleaf Trail,

no horses or bicycles.

With the approvals I just mentioned,

I wondered why Timberleaf Trail could get changed

to a multi-use trail.

Why isn't Council supporting what they approved

back in 1996?

Does the City Council's approval of an item

only last a few weeks, a few months, a few years.

Why doesn't the city council stand behind its commitments

and enforce its approval of a consent calendar item

made back in 1996?

Our citizens, businesses, neighbors that are impacted

by the reversal of a consent calendar approval item

just plain out of luck.

I also attached to my email,

but nobody will be able to see it.

If I sent you the email, you got it.

but some videos of what I'm calling night riders.

These are people that are showing up after hours

in the open spaces on electric bikes or motorcycles.

They travel in multiple packs with headlights,

flashing brightly, as they travel down Timberleaf Trail,

again, after it's closed.

I have one video attached to my email and public comments.

The last ride was at 1 a.m. with motorcycles

on Timberleaf Trail tearing up the muddy trail.

Anyway, I ask that you handle the situation,

turn it back to pedestrian only.

Thank you.

I did actually see your videos.

Just, I saw the videos with the letter, so.

I know, you see them all in a second?

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right.

So we're up to staff.

Is there any more public comment?

Seeing none.

I see the, oh, no.

Our next item is closed, yes closed station.

I'm ready there, thank you, I appreciate it.

Closed session announcements.

Yeah, there was no reportable action

from closed session this evening, Mayor.

Hi, City Manager, would you have something to say?

Yes, I do have one update this evening.

I would like to announce that the city's website

went through a complete overhaul and was updated

and was launched yesterday.

The new website, the address is walnutcreekca.gov.

I do want to highlight this was over a year in the making,

pulling this together.

The intent is to improve the readability,

the accessibility, and to update much of the content.

The old site, walnut-creek.org,

will redirect to the new website,

and obviously it'll be a transition period for that to occur.

So it is up and running.

I do want to give special thanks to the many staff

that were involved in this throughout the city.

It really was a team approach, and in particular,

to Liz Payne of our city manager's office

led this effort and put in a tremendous amount of effort to bring this forward.

The launch has gone well so far and again that new website is walnutcreekca.gov.

Thank you Mayor. Thank you council members and we have lots of people in

our audience so maybe we'll keep this as brief as possible and Matt you're

nodding your head please take over. Yes Mayor, thank you. I deferred my update

from last meeting and I am reporting on the Chamber's November meeting. I'm the

council liaison to the Chamber of Commerce, a reminder that the East Bay

Women's Conference will be returning to Walnut Creek for the second year and

will be hosted at the Lesher Center. There are three fantastic speakers,

Felicia, or keynote speakers I should say, Felicia Hatcher, Allison Massari and

Kelly Swanson. The theme of this year's conference will be her story in the

making and there are discount tickets available through the end of the year.

So go online and get your tickets for that. It's always, it's tense, it is a

sold-out event I believe every year and this is the second year again that

Walnut Creek is proud to host it at the Lesher Center. I'm also very excited to

report that there will be a half marathon race on Mount Diablo on March

2nd that the Visitors and Convention Bureau is hosting. The chamber itself is

focused on hosting a conference related to the future of Walnut Creek in the

spring. More details to come out on that. The January Civic Affairs meeting will

be focused on the Shadelands rebranding effort. The chamber provided an update

of a meeting they had with Senator Steve Glaser where topics involved organized

retail theft and what more the state can do to help local agencies combat that.

and also BART and the problems both with operations and public safety. There was

an economic development working group meeting where there were updates on the

Diablo Valley Tech Initiative and the city's efforts to update its design

review standards and guidelines and that is my update. Thank you very efficiently

offered. Kevin, would you please be next? Sure, I'll try to be just as efficient. As

As the liaison to County Connection,

we had the pass to class report that came out.

There were over 2,000 passes issued,

which is a 20% increase and 123% increase in rides alone.

And Walnut Creek buses were the biggest increases.

There's a lot of reasons for that,

one of which of course is we have the free shuttle downtown

and that certainly helps to increase rides.

But they would like to work with our communications manager,

Betsy, to talk about any PR that we can then help

promote of what's happening with County Connection within the city for all of the residents.

As the liaison for the final time actually for Diablo Regional Arts Association, there

has been terrific attendance for a Christmas Carol. There's only a few nights to go in

a Christmas Carol. It's just been a big success, but there are still individual tickets and

couples tickets that are available. They also mentioned the new programs that are coming

out for 2024, make sure you visit lesserartscenter.org to see what shows are coming. Great holiday

gift for people and I think there's a big holiday coming right around the corner. So

just a few to tantalize are there's the doo-wop project coming out in January, Mystic Pizza,

the musical, College Notes, which is acapella, think glee, Cabaret, and a host of Festival

cultural, it's done so much more. So go again go to LeisureArtCenter.org to

see them all and lastly I just wanted to say that the lighting of the Hanukkah

Menorah, the Grand Menorah at Broadway Plaza last week, had an amazing amount of

attendance, great to see the festivities that were there. I hope everyone had a

good Hanukkah who celebrates that and that nobody lost too many dreidels. Good

year. Council Member Silva. Good evening everyone it's nice to see you all. A few

announcements because it's been about a month. The council member Francois and I

represent Walnut Creek on the board of Recycle Smart which is the trash and

recycling and organics processing joint powers authority with among six

communities. We are among 12 board members. We had a retreat last week and

And we talked about basically the future of recycling, not only in this state, but internationally

as well.

We talked about what our goals and metrics should be for recycling.

Should we change the list of recyclables?

Because we're probably recycling things that aren't recyclable.

And what it does is it takes extra money in the processing and sorting effort to actually

get enough value out of that.

So kind of the weighing the balance of a long list of recyclables versus a lower cost.

We also talked about education, new programs, including one.

I want to thank our public works staff for recommending that we have regularly scheduled

compost hubs somewhere in our communities.

And that came as an idea from our public works staff.

And we also discussed the state of the international market for recyclables.

So more to follow on that.

The League of California Cities, which is the association of 482 cities in California,

met recently the leaders of that organization, and we established our advocacy priorities

for the coming year, starting with fiscal sustainability, including addressing the risks

of the loss of revenues through a certain ballot measure that is slated for 2024.

public safety, and particularly two items, organized retail theft but also

fentanyl deaths. It's a significant problem in this country. Housing and

homelessness and climate resiliency rounded out our four advocacy

priorities. At the National League of Cities conference in Atlanta last month

I had the ability to see a couple of presentations, one of which was from

Google, and they talked about the use of artificial intelligence at the municipal

level and it was really interesting because he suggested there are simple

things that can improve public service or public works for example putting AI

on garbage trucks and using AI not to check garbage but to check for potholes

because that garbage truck goes down the block once a week or more so that could

be that was an interesting option. The other presentation and program was on

on what they called the Housing Accelerator Program.

Across this country, we have a problem

in that we're not building enough housing

to accommodate everyone who needs housing.

It's why we're seeing the rise in homelessness,

high prices, people being priced out of the market.

And the National League of Cities

in partnership with the American Planning Association

did this one-year study where they worked with,

across the table with all parts of the housing

industry, from developers to planners to architects, etc., to try to figure out what are the problems,

what are potential solutions, and how that can be delivered at the local level. And that report will

come out in the early 2024. Finally, I will mention that there is a new mural in the storybook area

of the Downtown Library. It's based on the Tortoise and the Hare theme, and we all know

what that ASOP fable is about. Slow and steady may win the race. And then at the end I want

to thank Public Works staff and in partnership with Walnut Creek downtown for helping us

light the tree in Civic Park 10 days ago. It is the first time that we've had the tree

in Civic Park since 2010. And so we're glad to have it back. So thank you to our Public

staff. Thank you mayor. You're welcome. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you. Just a couple

things to talk about. I did my last presentation to the Golden Rain

Foundation at Rossmore and I am in the process of transferring that over to

Councilmember Wilk. They are continuing to struggle with insurance costs as I

think many of us have probably been doing and so that will be something

that's going to be front and center for them for a while. I got a chance to

to represent Mayor Haskew at the Contra Costa Mayor's

Conference and it was lucky to represent her

because it was the holiday party and I could do that.

Many of us did attend the Chamber of Commerce

Holiday Party also and they had great sweaters.

Everybody on the chamber staff had their cats

or their dogs on their sweaters.

The Homeless Task Force did meet.

They are going to switch to a slightly less frequent

meeting schedule coming in the new year,

and they're probably gonna switch to all Zoom.

Several of the people that come from the county

and from other places can't get there in person.

And we've had some technical difficulties

making it work hybrid,

so we're probably just gonna go all virtual.

They are continuing to track the information

collected by a number of different sources,

including Trinity, the homeless outreach patrol

from the police department, the core team,

and loaves and fishes to try to see

what trends come out of that.

And at some point,

we'll probably wanna look at that as a council.

And then last but not least is MCE.

We met as the executive committee there

and worked out executive compensation again for the year.

The industry is growing and it's a special position

being the CEO of one of these community choice aggregators.

And we're struggling with the fact that our CEO at MCE

is the longest term one CEO in the area

and is constantly getting headhunted.

And so we're trying to keep her happy

and make everything work.

And we'll find out in January if we succeeded in that one,

we give her her report.

But the other really good thing that we got from them,

One of the biggest problems with the power grid

in California right now is peak load becomes

much more important when you have all solar or wind,

because we all know the sun goes down,

the wind stops blowing.

And that's when you need, sometimes you'll need

a resource that can come on right away.

So a few years ago MCE made a somewhat controversial

decision to invest in a natural gas powered peaker plant,

which is not greenhouse gas friendly,

but it incorporated with it a large battery system.

And it also incorporated some really advanced technology

on the operation of the peaker plant.

And we got a great presentation from them.

They're just in startup mode now

and trying to give us an idea

of how much greenhouse gas they are saving

over a traditional peaker plant.

But it's interesting.

One of the things that, ways that they described it is,

you know how if you're driving your hybrid car

and it turns on right away and turns off right away

and saves electricity when it does that,

most of the peaker plants in California can't do that.

So they have technology in the new plant

that allows them to turn on and turn off,

whereas a traditional plant,

it takes several hours to turn on and turn off.

And so they're assuming,

they're hoping that they can get the grid stability

that we need in California at a far less greenhouse gas cost.

And so we're happy that we invested in it

and we're looking forward to getting more results from them.

And that is my report.

Thank you.

I'm glad I asked for it to be short.

Okay, so we're on to me

who actually is gonna follow my own advice.

And I did not attend the CCTA meeting

because I was at the California Congress of Governments

and as the representative

for Contra Costa Transportation Authority at the same time.

And we spent a lot of time

talking about transportation issues

and what we think is on the horizon

and the change in the available funding from the state

about how we can keep that going.

And all of this has to do with keeping our roads done.

there is a great deal of concern

because as we electrify the vehicle industry,

we take away the gas tax funds that help pay for our roads.

And so we're gonna have to figure out where the money is

and how to make it equitable and applicable

and practical is not so easy to determine.

The next thing I went to was TransPak,

which is the local government

and the most important to buy item is there

is if you know any nonprofits who are really looking

to support grant accessible transportation

for people in the immediate area,

please let them know that Transpac has put out a request

for them to make a request from us for grants

for the next couple of years.

We have about 100 and something million dollars

to grant over that time

and lots of nonprofits need that extra money.

The best part about this week was this morning

I went to Walnut Acre School

and became the mayor of their gingerbread towns

and I got to cut the ribbons

as the children explained to me about the towns

and I just warmed my heart.

So the job of mayor isn't all bad.

That being done, we move in right along here

and we're up to the public hearing.

And the first item is the zoning code text amendment

for 2079, Mount Diablo 2-0-L housing ministerially

with 20% affordable units.

And this one is in terms of a public hearing,

a relatively simple circumstance.

So I won't go into depth about what this is about,

but the first part is always hearing from the staff.

So please introduce yourself and take over.

Good evening, Mayor Haskew and Council Sung Kwon,

Assistant Director of Community Development.

The project before you is a zoning code text amendment

the office commercial zoning designation for the specific site known as 2079 Mount Diablo.

This amendment would allow multifamily housing by right on the site.

Just to orient you with the site, the 25,000 square foot parcel is located on the southern

side of Mount Diablo and consists of about a 7,200 square foot motel.

The site is within the west downtown specific plan boundaries and bounded by retail office

and other commercial businesses. St. Mary's School is located to the east and the 680

interstate freeway and residential uses are located to the west. The recommended zoning

code text amendment is a change to note L21 of the office commercial zone to allow multifamily

residential by right when at least 20% of the units are affordable at this specific

site of 2079 Mount Diablo.

This allowance is part of implementing the housing element by allowing by-right housing

on sites that have been reused from previous housing elements.

The Planning Commission has reviewed the zoning code amendment on November 30, 2023 and the

proposed ordinance is now before the council.

In terms of the environmental review, staff believes that the project was sufficiently

analyzed in the west downtown specific plan EIR.

And with that, staff recommends that the council determine that the west downtown specific

plan has adequately addressed the potential environmental impacts for this project.

And to introduce and waive further reading of the zoning code, text amendment, staff

is available to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Are there any questions?

Councilmember Francois?

Thank you Mayor and thank you for the succinct report.

I noticed that we got a comment letter

from Franklin Goldman asking about raising the issue

of some potential hazards issues on the property

and I know we're relying on the west downtown specific plan.

Maybe you could just refresh our memory

about the mitigation in that plan

or the standard DTSC process

for dealing with hazardous sites.

Right, so the fact that the council would be amending

the code to allow this to be permitted by right,

housing permitted right, does not negate the need

to comply with CEQA and the need to comply

with the other regulatory agencies for remediation.

The assertion in the communication relates

to what may have migrated from another site,

so it's not a contaminant that originates on this site,

But to the extent that the site does have any exposure

to contaminants, those would have to be remediated

before any construction was done.

More importantly, I would say also,

the action tonight is just changing the zoning for the lot.

It's not actually approving any project.

Should any project come through the city,

the appropriate regulatory agencies would be looking

at the issue as to whether or not the site

needs to be remediated to a standard that would allow housing.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, just a couple questions.

Is the mountain in active use

and is it significantly used to your knowledge?

To my knowledge, I think it is in use.

I'm not 100% sure.

Okay, but it is in business right now.

People are staying there.

I believe so.

Okay, thank you.

So just to reiterate, this is not a proposal for change.

This is a text amendment to the zoning

in order to comply with state law.

correct when the when the city identified this site as a potential housing site in the last

housing element it obviously the site did not convert to housing during that time period and

so state law requires that in those instances you make the ability to obtain approvals for housing

more streamlined by right and this does not change anything that would trigger

a more intense environmental review based on the assessment no not at this time the project

itself may have to go through environmental review at such time what

is proposed to the city at the moment there is no project. But again for all of

you here the mountain, Mount Diablo and is not changing at this point in time no

proposal for that. Okay. Just one more quick question and this does confirm

within the or confirm to and fitting in with the west downtown specific plan

correct? Yes. Okay, thank you. I have no questions. Okay, so thank you. I'm now

going to ask for a public comment. Does anybody in the audience wish to make a

comment about this particular item? Yes, please come forward. I'm Steve Depper. I

own a property right across the street from Mount Diablo Inn and we have been

working, not working with, we have had contamination on our property from the

Marathon Tesoro gas stations now owned by 7-Eleven of Japan as well as the

Doherty site which are listed in your documents. That contamination, according

to Tesoro's own consultants, has crossed the street to the south side of Mount

Diabolo, which is where Diabolo Mountain Inn is located.

Contamination has also been found in front of St. Mary's Church.

So we know that area has heavy contamination from at least three different service stations.

Well, two service stations and one person who had underground gasoline tanks that leaked.

We would suggest and reiterate again that there be an environmental review before you

go too far into that process and go, rather than use circular, actually do the investigation

or require that an investigation be done before we go any further.

Because as we found out from Central San who just tested the soil when they were drilling

or digging for their trench, we received benzene in excess of a fatal dosage for the 200 foot

long trench which is directly headed towards the Diablo Mountain Inn.

So again, there's heavy contamination that does need to be remediated.

It's already within the city streets.

We know that it's been there.

We know it was tested by Tesoro at MW8.

We know they found water at 30 feet, but they didn't test for water.

They only tested to 20 feet.

So no one knows, and there has been no conceptual site plan by the Tesoro station as to exactly

where that plume went but we do believe it's there. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any

other public comment? I have a question or how do we ensure that, I'm sorry did you

say, Mr. Depper's comments are on the record related to the site? They are part of the

record of the hearing this evening and so and we are aware of the potential contamination

on the site so when a project comes in that issue will be analyzed. I did also

want to share with the council that this item is the council's aware is before

you as one of the implementation actions under the housing element and it is one

of the actions that HCD understands that the city would undertake and have

completed before the end of January. Okay thank you very much. Is there anything

anything else from the council to all right thank you for your information

all right I believe we are ready to either make additional comments or ask

additional staff questions which is kind of just did so are there any comments

just a quick comment I mean we hear a lot about different rezoning and

different kind of amendments for zoning this is an area I think that makes

perfect sense for this obviously this is kind of taken out of our hands anyway in

working with the HCD, but this lot of land is downtown.

It's 15, I walked it, it's 15 minutes from Bart

down Oakland Boulevard, it's 12 minutes from downtown.

So when people are thinking where does Walnut Creek

with all this building, where does it go?

Downtown is exactly where we want it to go

for residential housing.

And so this makes not just a lot of sense.

I'm glad that we're able to do this.

Great.

Council Member Francois.

I agree with my colleague.

I think that this project, when it ultimately comes forward,

could be a catalyst for the residential development

that we were envisioning along Mount Diablo

and the west downtown plan.

I do take seriously the comments

that were received about hazards.

I'm familiar that those types of issues

are taken seriously by the city and the state.

And whenever a development project comes along,

they will generally need,

if there's contamination on the site

and they're planning on disturbing that

prepare a remedial action plan to address that to make sure that the people who are living there

are living on a safe site. So I know I'm confident that that will happen

when and if that site is proposed for development and I'm pleased to support this proposal.

Okay any other council members? I think based on the advice from staff I while I would be concerned

about the contamination, it sounds like it will be well handled and mediated if the site,

when the site gets developed, so I'm willing to support this one.

Thank you.

And so now I will move to determine that the proposed zoning text amendment is consistent

with the adopted PEIR for the west downtown specific plan and additional analysis required

under, no additional analysis is required under CEQA guidelines, and introducing way

for the reading of the ordinance amending certain land use regulations for the office

as commercial district under title 10 part two,

article eight of the Walnut Creek Municipal Code

with respect to the property located at 2079

Mount Diablo Boulevard.

Second.

Thank you.

May we please have a roll call vote?

Mayor Pro Tem Darling.

Well, Madam Mayor, just if I may,

I'm sorry, I didn't hear whether or not

the public hearing was actually closed on that item.

Oh, I'm sorry, yes, the public hearing was,

it is actually closed now.

Thank you.

before the motions were made.

Don't you remember?

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Mayor Pro Tem Darlene.

Aye.

Council member Silva.

Aye.

Council member Francois.

Aye.

Council member Wilk.

Aye.

Mayor Haskew.

Aye.

Two reminders.

The doors need to have people on inside or outside.

There are some seats here available

if you wanna come here.

And there is seating upstairs on the third floor

if you're interested and your feet hurt

because you've been gracious in standing.

So please avail yourselves of that.

And I believe there is a transmission of the meeting upstairs

so that you won't miss anything if you decide to do that.

All right, we're on to the next item.

I have to announce, I think.

The next item is a consideration

and action on proposed purchase and sale

of joint escrow instructions agreement,

including related exempt surplus state land determination,

acceptance of a replicable offer of dedication

as set forth in the subdivision map number 4006,

tree removal permit appeals,

improvement agreement, maintenance agreement,

and covenant not to oppose annexing

and association CEQA compliance determinations,

all in relationship to city actions

related to the county approved speaker,

senior community care project.

And before we go to the staff report,

I'm going to ask the council

if we've had any ex parte conversations.

Mayor, I met with the applicant's representative.

It's been over a year now,

and I may have had one or two Zoom calls,

maybe two Zoom calls with them.

I also had a Zoom meeting with Carol Curtis,

the president of the Homeowners Association,

more recently, and a few years ago,

I toured the site with, I think it was Councilmember Wilk,

Michelle Sheehan, Bob Simmons,

and a few others from Save Seven Hills.

Okay, Councilmember Wilk?

Similar, I met with the applicant over Zoom

probably about a year and a half ago,

and then along with council member Francois,

with Michelle Sheehan on about five people.

Again, that was probably about a year and a half ago as well.

And then with one other person that's been involved,

former mayor Bob Simmons,

and that was at least six to eight months ago that we met.

Nothing since.

Thank you council member Silva.

Over the course of the last five years,

I've met a few times with the speaker representatives,

I have met with individuals, including Mayor Yu and I,

were together on a tour of the site with local neighbors.

And I recently got some questions answered

by the proponent.

Okay, thank you.

And I too met with representatives

of the speaker organization.

I also went out and did a tour of the Seven Hills School

so that they could explain to me their concerns

but the project did a similar onsite visit

with Michelle Sheehan and a couple of the other folks

from the neighborhood and then have walked it once

with Bob Simmons, walked along the flood control channel

with Bob Simmons.

More recently when the package came out,

I reached out to Michelle Sheehan and Bob Simmons

just to let them know the package was out

and ask them if they had anything

that they wanted to pass on to me.

So those are my contacts.

Thank you, and my contacts as council member Silva pointed

out was there and as I remember the land was muddy.

We didn't even go into the property.

We only were outside of the fencing.

And I did have a couple of conversations

with the developer phone conversations.

And they were so long ago,

I don't even remember what we talked about.

So, I think I've covered the ex parte situation.

Mayor Pro Tem refreshed my recollection.

I also did meet with representatives of Seven Hills School

and it's been a few years though.

Yeah, oh, yeah, thank you.

I qualify.

Actually, same, yeah, you're right, same.

Yeah, we all qualify on that one, so thank you.

Yeah, all right, that takes us through that.

The next job is of the staff to make a presentation of the situation.

Thank you Mayor.

Good evening Mayor and Council.

Terri Kilgore, Assistant City Manager.

As you can tell, we've shortened the title that we gave you to describe the project as

the Glen at Heather Farm and the sale of lot A. Obviously it's far more a complicated action

in front of you this evening, but in essence it boils down to the question before the Council

being would you like to sell lot A, which would ultimately enable the extension of Ken

Ross Drive to serve as the primary access point for the project that's previously approved

by the County Board of Supervisors.

This evening we have a very full agenda for you.

We will try to keep it as concise as we can.

We know we have a lot of interested people here to speak, so we want to make sure we

leave time for that, but because it is a complex option action, there are multiple steps here

that we'll be walking through this evening.

So if we haven't already, we should be opening a public hearing this evening.

We'll be doing a staff presentation, which is us right now.

At the end of the staff presentation, we'll leave some time for questions.

As part of those questions, we have some subject matter experts here with us, and we'll detail

those for you in a moment.

After the staff presentation, you will hear from the applicant as well as the other appellant

to the tree removal permits and then we will go to public comment. You'll hear

potentially rebuttals from the applicant and it says applicant slash

appellants because the applicant is also an appellant on the tree removal permit.

We'll close the public hearing and then we'll leave space and time for Council

deliberation and potential council action. So that's the official piece of

it. What we're gonna walk you through in terms of the staff presentation is

we'll talk a little bit about the resources including the people in the

room who can help provide additional information this evening for your

questions. We'll give you a little background on the project, explain the

different roadway options as well as the options before the council this evening

for deliberation. So in the room this evening are those folks who do not have

a star next to their name. They're here this evening to help answer questions. As

As you can see from this slide, it takes a village to create a massive staff report like this and presentation, as well as negotiate a deal as complex as this.

It involves staff from the city manager's office, community development, city attorney's office, public works, and the city clerk.

So thank you to all of the folks who participated and helped.

Also this evening we're joined by John Kopchak, the Director of Conservation and

Development for Contra Costa County who has been involved with this project as

it's made its way through the county process. And then we have representatives

from Speaker Senior Development who are the applicant and appellant as I just

mentioned and we'll let them introduce their team as as they come up to the

microphone. So a little context, I'm gonna guess most people in the room are

familiar with the project, but just to level set, the project is titled

officially the Glen at Heather Farm. It's a gated senior residential community

which has 354 independent senior living units as well as a hundred medical care

units. It's completely located within unincorporated county, which is why the

project was heard by the county, not the City Council, and it takes up about just

over 30 acres. It has many names, so we've learned in this journey people all

call it something different. So just to be clear we're also talking about the

Speaker-Senior Continuing Care Retirement Community Project, also a

mouthful, Seven Hills Ranch, the Hale property, and formerly known as Diablo

Glen. So all of those monikers apply to the discussion this evening. So the

primary context this evening is around which way would be best for traffic to

exit the project site and the project itself was as I mentioned before because

it's in the county was heard by the County Board of Supervisors and the

project itself was issued its entitlements and improvements on November

29th of 2022 so just over a year ago and the CEQA EIR analyzed two potential

access roadways one utilizing Seven Hills Ranch Road and the other utilizing

a potential future Kinross extension.

So this map is very colorful and what it's trying to show you

is the pink is Seven Hills Ranch Road,

and if you wax it out that way,

your most expeditious route from there

is to continue down Walnut Boulevard,

which is orange, to connect with YVR.

You could also weave through the neighborhood

to get to other streets,

but that's the anticipated flow of much of the traffic.

The blue indicates a future potential Kinross extension.

To be clear, we are intentionally not talking about

routing traffic through the private Kenross Road.

The expectation is that all traffic would stay

on March Banks Drive, and either route to the left

or the right, giving it two access points

onto Ignacio Valley Road.

And if you hear me say YVR, please note

that I mean Ignacio Valley Road.

Do, do, do, do, say context there.

Here we go, sorry.

So for this piece, for the discussion this evening,

there's two pieces of land that are adjacent to each other

that are under discussion.

The yellow indicates lot A, which is a city owned

50 square foot strip of land

that is separate from the Ken Ross Drive right of way.

And the Ken Ross Drive right of way was created

as part of the area subdivision maps.

And it was made as an offer of future right of way.

The city at the time did not choose to accept that.

And so the interesting thing I learned on this journey

is that once that offer of dedicating land

to be right-of-way is made, it becomes irrevocable

and stays with the land in perpetuity.

So it is at the council's discretion

to accept that dedication of right-of-way,

and that would be part of the action this evening

should you wish to enable the extension of Kinras Drive.

Both lot A and the area for the Kinras extension

are within the Walnut Creek City boundaries.

And I will note that this map is just for graphic illustration.

It's not to scale.

No one should be measuring anything on it.

It's just to give you a sense of context.

So the journey thus far, we started from the county approval where we started our clock.

There were another two to three years' worth of process that took to get the county through

their approval process, including the full EIR endeavor.

So once the county approval was issued, staff began examining what it would take potentially

to enable an extension of Ken Ross Drive and negotiating on the terms and conditions that

would be needed to make that amenable potentially for council consideration.

We have reached what we believe are terms worthy of council's consideration.

And to enable the discussion this evening, we had some procedural steps that we needed

to follow.

So we brought the applicant applied for removal of two highly protected trees oak trees and

we approved excuse me back up so a tree permit tree removal permit was submitted.

There were 10 total trees eight were approved by the Public Works Director in accordance

with the city tree ordinance two were not approved those two were appealed to the zoning

administrator the zoning administrator approved their removal and then the appeal of that

That decision is what is before the council this evening.

In addition, we had to go to the planning commission to ask them to make a recommendation

to the council on whether or not there was general plan conformance.

They found that there was general plan conformance, both on November 30th again on December 14th

because there was an error in our posting of public correspondence.

So just in an abundance of caution, we went back and they reaffirmed their decision.

materials are in the council's packet for your review. And then finally that

brings us to this evening where we're considering the purchase and sale

acceptance of right-of-way and all of the supporting agreements as well as the

tree permit removal appeal. So let's talk about what's in the council's purview

and what is not. This evening we're being very specific in what we're asking you

because there are several things that have already been decided for us in

essence. So this evening we're asking the council to consider whether you'd like

to sell lot A, and if the terms and conditions for the sale of lot A as proposed by staff

are sufficient.

If you do choose to sell lot A as proposed, then what will happen next is we'll ask you

to take action on the tree removal permit, approve the PSA, which is our lingo for the

purchase and sale agreement, as well as the three other supporting agreements included

in your packet, and ultimately accept the irrevocable offer of dedication.

To be clear, what is not in this council's purview is the overall project approval that

was already done by the County Board of Supervisors.

The Environmental Impact Report, the EIR, is presumed valid under CEQA, and we are obligated

to proceed as though the EIR is indeed valid.

And then there is nothing in this action before the council that would relieve the developer

of any responsibility they may have to get their required permits and approvals from

other agencies and oversight bodies.

So they still have to go get all their permits, they still have to go take care of any mitigations

that are required under those permits, and nothing exempts them from that in this exercise.

So CEQA at a very, very basic level here, we are a responsible agent, C, and the county

is the lead agency.

So we are one of a number of responsible agencies.

And because we are in this secondary role, we are obligated to rely upon the county EIR.

And so that's how you see us proceeding as staff throughout this is relying on the county

EIR as certified.

Some key details from the EIR, both Ken Ross Drive and Seven Hills Ranch Road were analyzed

options, and mitigation measures were defined.

So the purchase and sale agreement for Lade as currently drafted requires that all county

conditions of approval and all mitigation measures be implemented.

So there's no getting around what the county required in the EIR or identified in the EIR.

Those all still apply should the council proceed with the sale of Lottie.

So the council has, before we go into details here, the council has three broad options.

One, you can move forward with the actions that would enable the use of the Ken Ross

extension by approving the sale of Lottie as negotiated, accepting the irrevocable offer

of dedication of right-of-way and taking all the other supporting actions that are detailed

in your staff report in the very long list of council actions.

Option two, the council could tell staff that you wish to seek new negotiated terms.

Depending on the scale and scope of those, it would determine how long it would be likely

before you would see staff back before this body with revised terms for your consideration.

And then option three is this council could decline to sell lot A and decline to accept

the irrevocable offer of dedication which would prohibit the use of the Kinross Drive

Extension by this project.

And that would be the final action for this body.

So with that, just a piece of context.

The staff recommendation is that the council proceed with option one, approving the sale

of lot A and moving forward with the Kinross Drive Extension.

And the primary reason for that is that the streets where Ken Ross drops into Marchbanks,

Marchbanks is a more improved street.

And by that I mean it's wider, it has better facilities for both pedestrians and bicycles

and is better able to accommodate the volume of new traffic.

So the specifics of the purchase and sale agreement, staff has negotiated several types

of benefits.

start with the purchase and sale agreement in terms of the direct

payments to the city. So the purchase price of lot A would be $500,000. There

was a little bit of confusion. I think some folks thought we were trying to

sell it for $50,000. That is just the down payment to open escrow and then the

full payment would be due at the close of escrow and that's likely if council

were to take action this evening would be in January of 2024. I almost said next

and that's not as meaningful since that's weeks away.

In addition, there's community benefit payments

that have been negotiated.

So $2 million would be a contribution to improvements

to Heather Farm Park.

That would be paid to the city prior to issuance

of the first building permit for the project.

So if you remember the county identified

community benefit funds of totaling $3 million,

we've left open the option for the developer

to negotiate with the county to use some of those funds

for this $2 million, but if they are not successful

in that endeavor, they are still responsible

to pay the city the $2 million payment.

A half million dollar contribution to the Lesher Center

would be paid to the city prior to issuance

of first certificate of occupancy for the project.

And then an additional 1.75 million would be paid

to the city for transportation improvements

within Walnut Creek at the city's discretion.

that would be paid prior to commencement

of heavy grading on the project site.

So there'd be some minor grading and the tree removals

and then heavy grading is when the big bulldozers come out

and lots of dirt is moving.

So total direct payments to the city is totals 4.75 million.

So we've talked about how they are intended to be paid

but the worst case scenario is if the project is stalled

for some reason and does not meet its milestones

as intended in the contract.

The total amount would be payable no later than year 10.

So the city's interest are protected.

So the other type of benefit

in this purchase and sale agreement are project obligations.

So obviously extending Ken Ross Road

would be part of the developers obligations

where they would both build and maintain this extension

from the current bulb out to the project.

And you see it's noted as estimated value.

This is sort of the best guess of what it will cost

to build these improvements at the moment.

But even if this estimated value is wrong,

it still is an obligation of the developer

to complete this work.

So the financial risk is on the developer.

The gated access routes, these are really intended only

for emergency access and would occur

at the end of Seven Hills Ranch Road

and then at the end of North San Carlos Drive.

and they would be gated so that only emergency personnel

can access them.

They are not intended as secondary access for the public

or for employees or any other use.

It is purely emergency access.

And then drainage, this is one that those of us

interested in infrastructure are excited about.

The drainage plan that was envisioned in the EIR

was not operationally optimal for the city.

And so this goes back and addresses that situation

by reworking the drainage so that it connects

with the city's storm drain infrastructure

in the local retention pond.

So if you like engineering, Steve Weimar will wax poetic

on this one for you.

So total project obligations of about 2.3 million.

Again, these are not payments to the city,

these are simply developer obligations.

So the other project requirements,

a few of these are redundant

from what I just spoke about, so I'll breeze by them,

but one that's important, obviously,

is indemnifying the city against future lawsuits

related to the project.

A financial mechanism for the ongoing maintenance

for both a Kenross extension

as well as the drainage I just described to you.

A covenant not to oppose annexation.

Should the city at a future date wish to pursue this,

it would bring potential property tax dollars to the city.

The city's tree requirements will be met.

That's why we brought forward the tree permits

that you'll hear more about this evening.

that the developers obligated to repair

any city infrastructure, including roads

that are damaged during construction

and bring them back to full operational status,

and then reaffirming our intention

that all county conditions and mitigation measures

are implemented.

So as we mentioned, nothing in this excuses the developer

from all of their regular permitting

and regulatory requirements.

Public engagement, as you can see,

this is a big topic in our community

has been well discussed, you know, there was, as I mentioned, quite a lot of

county participation previously. This slide reflects only the public

communication up to the date of writing, which was a few days ago, so we could

probably double most of those numbers just by adding this evening in. And so

this was intentional to try and vet this as early as we could understanding that

we had constraints as part of a negotiation of real property. So this is

the community's first chance to really talk to you about these proposed

purchase of term and sale and we look forward to the dialogue this evening.

Throughout the process we've heard four major concerns voiced by the community.

One is that the city's prior general plan from 1989 did not support the use of

the Kinross extension. The 2025 general plan which is our current general plan

it replaces the prior plan in its entirety.

And the 2025 general plan does not prohibit

the Kenross extension.

Second, increased traffic on a neighborhood road

is problematic.

We would offer to the council for consideration

both roadways, our neighborhood roads,

and actually March Banks is a larger neighborhood road

than Walnut Boulevard.

And so both roadways were analyzed for the project

in the EIR as mentioned previously.

But both roadways can accommodate the projected traffic

for the development.

Environmental conservation, number three,

is not being achieved.

Focused primarily on the removal of wetlands

and highly protected trees.

The project has always anticipated

that trees will need to be removed.

And the EIR did analyze this reality

and provided for mitigation for both the removal of trees

and the wetland areas.

And then four, a concern that the county's CEQA approvals

may not be valid.

So they're, as a responsible agency,

not the lead agency, as I mentioned earlier,

the city is required to proceed with the presumption

that the CEQA approvals are granted and valid.

And we should continue to do so

until otherwise directed by the courts.

Okay, take a breath.

So if the city council decides to sell lot A,

there are a number of actions before you this evening.

First, you'll be making a secret determination

regarding the county EIR being in conformance

with the city's general plan.

You'll declare Lade exempt from the Surplus Lands Act.

You'll approve the Lade purchase and sale agreement.

You'll accept the irrevocable offer

of dedication for Ken Ross Drive easement.

You'll act on the tree permit appeals

and you'll approve the improvement agreement.

That's a tongue twister.

maintenance agreement, and covenant not to oppose annexation.

As context for you, as you hear the appellant speak

about the tree removal permit, as I mentioned before,

10 trees, eight were approved in compliance

with the city tree ordinance for removal, two were denied.

Those two are highly protected oak trees.

It was heard by the zoning administrator,

and then we received two appeals.

One from the developer, and we have come primarily

terms on that which and I'll let the developer speak more to that it was a

disagreement about the diameter of trees and therefore the valuation and

we've that has been resolved and then the Heather Farm HOA filed an appeal as

well ultimately council is the deciding body on the appeal in our tree ordinance

so the trees under appeal unfortunately sit in the middle of the Kinross right

of way. They are not on lot A as has been discussed and even more

unfortunately they are not relocatable. So these are trees that would have to

simply be removed. So here we are. You are now at the end of the staff

presentation. I would note for you that our representative from the county is

not able to stay the entire evening. So if there are council or council

questions for him, we would request that you ask those before we finish the

staff question portion of this evening. We have outlined the staff

recommendation as represented in the council staff agenda report for your

reference and then as I mentioned before we have a number of staff available for

questions and detailed responses to any inquiries you may have. With that I would

conclude the staff presentation. Thank you very much and we're up to in this

public hearing where the council is allowed to ask any questions and does

any council member have questions? I'm sure they do. Council member Francois.

Thank you mayor and thank you Terry and staff for the very comprehensive staff

report. I know that there were several steps along the way before we got to

this point tonight and you mentioned the county process and the certification of the EIR and

the approval of the project and that they were the land use approval authority because

the entire project is within the county. I know that the city commented on the EIR because

obviously that was of concern to us and our residents and can you summarize or someone

from staff summarize kind of the comments that we had and the county's

responses to them. I'm gonna look to our city attorney did you want to weigh in

on that Steve? Yeah so it was a pretty extensive set of comment letters that

covered a number of issues the loss of trees, aesthetic impacts, drainage impacts,

traffic impacts, there were a whole host of issues that were raised in those comment letters.

The and that included even issues such as parks impacts and whatnot.

And the county in the final EIR did respond to all of the issues.

They did not necessarily impose mitigation or conditions on some of the issues that they

they thought were not the proper subject of mitigation.

And so the city, when it was considering

the issues that are associated with the purchase

and sale agreement, did try to accomplish

some of those same,

some of those same issues where we could address

some of the impacts to the city,

not from a mitigation standpoint,

but from a sequel mitigation standpoint,

but just from an impact to the city of Wanna Creek.

So we did submit two or three letters to the county

and the county did respond to those letters

in many instances by imposing conditions

of approval on the project,

and in some instances by taking the position

that they were not issues that the county had to address,

and we've attempted to address those

in the purchase and sell agreement.

Okay, that's helpful.

And then kind of drilling down on one point,

I know multiple times you said, Terry,

that the applicant would have to comply

with all county conditions of approval

and mitigation measures.

And I know we had a recommendation

from the Planning Commission

and their general plan conformance

focused on the wetland mitigation.

I assume that would be one of the mitigation measures

that if this were to be approved,

that the applicant would have to comply with.

Yes, that's correct.

Is there a reason why they call that out specifically then,

or were they, maybe they didn't get the multiple times

that you'd be conditioned on the mitigation measures or?

Yes, there was a lot of public comment

and therefore a lot of planning commission discussion

about wetlands, and so that was where much

of the discussion centered,

and I think that's why you see it mentioned several times.

Can I just supplement that just a little bit too?

just to keep in mind that the issues

before the city council tonight

only relate to the issues

that are within the city of Walnut Creek.

So as the council is aware, as the public is aware,

there are also riparian habitat areas,

wetland areas on the project site,

but those were all addressed through the county's approvals

and through the project area.

That's not what is before the council this evening.

Those same mitigation measures

that would apply to the Canrass extension?

Yes, they would.

And then, you mentioned that both access routes

were considered in the EIR.

I think Ken Ross was identified as the project access route,

and then Seven Hills Ranch was looked at as an alternative.

Those are both neighborhood roads, as you said,

and they both go through the city or they're in the city.

Yeah, they both- The actual access points.

Yeah, they both ultimately end up in city roadways.

And can you, you summarized, and I'd be interested in Mr. Copchick's view on

this too, that why in staff's view Ken Ross was the preferred access route and

maybe if you could elaborate on that and it'd be helpful to hear from the

county on that as well. Sure, so in their current condition, March Banks is a more

improved infrastructure. It's about 50% wider. It has bike lanes, it has on-site

parking, it has sidewalks. If you've traveled down Walnut Boulevard, you know

there are not many sidewalks, if any. They're very narrow road lanes and

ultimately, Walnut Boulevard takes you by Walnut Creek intermediary school, which

given time and day, can be very busy and impacted already. So from a staff

perspective the flow is simply better accommodated on March banks than it is

out on Walnut Boulevard. I think that's that's it for me for now. Okay who wants

to be next? Councilmember Silva. Thank you very much staff and Terry for your

report and I have a number of questions but I think because Mr. Kopchak indicates

that he can't stay with us till breakfast that I will if I could ask him

a couple of really high level questions but I think they're important as ground

ground ground zero thank you councilmember and I am willing to stay late

if you need me to hopefully not till breakfast I gave you an out um so let's

just clarify some facts we know that we're not responsible for the land use

is because this 30 plus acres of property

are actually entirely within the unincorporated area.

Still Walnut Creek address and a Walnut Creek zip code.

Prior to last year's general plan amendment

that was made by, just about a little over a year ago,

the land use designation for the property

was single family medium, I think three to 4.9,

I say three to five.

I can't figure out what a nine tenth of a unit looks like.

per acre.

Correct.

So then the count, there are a lot

of stories running around in the community

that that change to single family medium

was made very, very recently, almost a hint

that it was on Senior Sheridan Hale's deathbed.

But I don't think it was, because I

remember it was described in the hearing

that I was watching a year ago.

Do you have some estimation of how long

it's been since the family had the land use changed?

Yes, it was more than 30 years ago.

So somewhere in the 1980s, maybe early 90s.

Yeah, I asked my staff if they could confirm that date today,

but we could trace it back more than 30 years

that it's been that same designation,

but I didn't pinpoint the exact date.

So it's been slated for development for a long time.

And was it ever slated to be a park

the county's point of view or in the family's point of view to your

knowledge. I don't my knowledge doesn't date back more than 30 years on the

site so I don't know that sorry. Now so that means that up until a year ago the

plan for the property would have been housing. Correct. And congratulations the

county just received the certification of its housing element and one of the

many pages of documents that we've received from the attorneys for the HOA

has two pages from I think a previous version

of the draft of the housing element,

but it does allude to the two parcels

that represent the 30 plus acres.

And it says on that table, 350 units or something like that.

So what happens if the speaker development,

and I'm not hinting that they would,

were to change its mind and put the,

since they own the property,

they'd put it back on the market.

What would happen to the land use designation

and what is the county likely to do?

And I know you can't speculate too much,

but does it become a no fly zone

where it has no land use designation?

No, the current land use designation,

I mean, what was approved would stay with it

until it was changed by the board,

which could happen at request of a future owner.

Okay, so, and those were my basic questions.

They're land use, they were pretty general, I think.

Well, if I may, Matt had another question for you.

I thought that your staff answered it.

Those were exactly the thinking that went into the county

staff's recommendation to use the Ken Ross Drive.

The planning aspects that Ms. Kilgore summarized

were the same considerations that we had.

Matt, would you ask, is it your question?

It did.

Director Kopchick, in terms of there's kind of a little

confusion or can be about whether it's project is housing or not housing

Maybe if you could elaborate on that it's it is housing

I understand for your Rina numbers, but not housing for impact fee purposes is that that's right. That's accurate

Okay, and what is that some nuance of state law or how yes?

Residential care facilities are treated differently for purposes of impact fees under state law, okay

anybody else have any for mr. no yeah John questions you've got to John

questions hi hi the questions for you are want to understand because there's a

couple different things that the county is going to do from here on out one of

the conditions of approval was the applicant has to get certification in

401 with the regional water quality control board and 404 from the core and

And those have to happen prior to a grading permit.

And the grading can begin, as I understand it,

in the spring once Seven Hills School gets let out.

But we have the tree removal permit

that would, the interest is to get a tree removal permit

approved by the February 1st deadline

so that nesting birds are not disturbed.

Do you think, our staff is not involved in the discussions

with the regional board or the Corps.

Have you been involved in any of the discussions?

Do you think they're likely to be able to get the 404

and 401 issues done this spring?

I think that's a better, I am not involved in that,

so I would ask that.

That's an applicant question.

And then it's been a long time since I've done 404 and 401,

but I know sometimes the Corps requires

alternatives analysis and can sometimes send a project in a different direction and

If we are issuing a tree removal permit now that allows removal at Kinross

What would be the steps if the core ends up in their 404 certification

Taking the project in a different direction

Yeah, you have a lot of background on this I know I

Yeah, I care I probably shouldn't speculate on that. I don't know there's many different things that other regulatory agencies could do

they all I could say is that the you know, the

Application is conditioned on the way the county conditioned it

So if another regulatory agency told them to move left and we had told them to move right then we would have a problem

so I'm not sure if I anticipate that but

Our action is independent of what the core requires

But you do have that requirement in there that they get the 404 and 401. Yes. Yes, you do. Okay. Thank you

See before I let you sit down make sure there's nothing else in there that

Yeah, those are my John cop check questions, and I've just got one John cop to question so and first of all

I apologize if what I say may be

In addition to some of the questions that we've heard from other council members,

we have three council members that were on planning commissions and are used to diving much deeper into these kind of things than I ever was,

so I apologize for the rudimentary nature of some of my questions. This goes to staff and anybody else they ask questions of.

The county had their own planning commission review and they determined that the least environmental impact was through a different access route.

Can you describe that?

I think you're referring to the

EIR. The EIR referred to the Environmentally Superior alternative, which was through a

different access route, because it would have slightly less well and impacts.

And that would have been the one that went through to Walnut? Is that correct?

Yes, through Seven Hills.

Okay.

Yeah.

And that was the recommendation to the County Board of Supervisors?

No. No. We were following the, and I don't want to get too much into the EIR aspects,

that CEQA requires that you identify that.

We did, but for the reasons that were articulated,

even though it had a small,

somewhat less environmental impact for other social reasons,

the other access was deemed preferable.

Okay, those are my questions for Mr. Sopcich.

I got my other one.

Oh, there we go.

This has nothing to do with core jurisdiction.

It has to do with bicycle connections in the,

We've, in our comment letter on the EIR,

raised the possibility of a bicycle connection

through there.

We understand that that's not something

that the applicant is interested in

because of the nature of the facility.

But in the county's mitigation considerations,

they said that the staff will work with the project sponsor

in City of Walnut Creek to explore possibilities

of providing trail connections as part of the project.

In one of the, I was wondering if the county has thought

about using the flood control channel as one of those.

Is that something that you're considering doing

as you move forward?

Yes, in fact, we included that as some conditions

to require the project proponent to make a permanent offer

of the land along the flood control channel

so that we'd have some buffer room

in case we were able to do that.

So that is something the county's interested

in partnering with as we move forward.

It's an option we're interested in.

Interested in exploring.

Yes, that's right.

Okay, great.

That's my last on top check question.

I've got my fingers crossed you're released.

Okay, any more questions before we actually take a break?

I have Steve Weimar questions.

Okay.

Mayor, are these questions for staff based on this?

Yes, and then when we finish that, we'll take a break.

I've got a few too.

Yeah, okay, yeah.

You wanna just go start down there.

right yes Kevin go all right Terry you're back on so does the fire department

allow just one point of access in and out which is what this would be to be

clear because there's the two other gated points of access there's one that

would serve as a an official emergency vehicle access and then the the entry

point off of Ken Ross would be a secondary access but excuse me reverse

that that would be the primary access and the gated emergency vehicle access

would be a secondary point for the fire department for the fire department but

if there was an emergency and everybody had to leave there was an evacuation

they would all be going through Ken Ross and no no that would be up to the fire

department to direct how what the what the exiting plan would be but there are

multiple points of exit at the fire department's discretion but it's not one

that if you and I were living in the complex and we wanted to just leave it's

like an emergency exit you can't just go out that way okay is the city legally

obligated to sell to allow access I'm gonna let our attorney take that one the

the council has discretion to approve the cell or to deny the so I think this

This was answered before, but I just want to clarify.

So one of the many correspondences we received mentioned that there was a promise that the

city would not have a connection point between Seven Hills Ranch Road and Kinross.

It sounds like that was the 1985 general plan, but I just want to confirm that there wasn't

any other such agreement or promise made.

Looking to Steve again.

That is correct.

The history of the general plan is that the general plan prior to 1985 actually did anticipate

a connection of Ken Ross to the Seven Hills property. The 89 general plan had a provision

in it that said it wouldn't connect in the current and the operative general plan, the

one that is actually enforced right now does not prohibit the connection of Ken Ross to

the Seven Hills property. When was that, I'm just, my memory is fading

on this, when was the general plan adopted for that, the current one?

and five. So I'm recalling six six six. So we don't know if this if that

connection point was even discussed it just wasn't included. I mean we probably

have to go back into records but I well it's I mean the the current general

plan is expressed in that it replaces the prior general plan so it it is the

controlling general plan legal document and the prior general plans have shown

that the count your predecessors have been able to clearly state whether there

was going to be a connection or one would be prohibited. In the 1971 general

plan it was actually specifically identified that Ken Ross would connect

through and in the 89 general plan there was this there was this prohibition on a

connection. And and the plan currently supersedes everything went before.

okay everything you in its entirety uh the last question i have

i guess for now uh is the 4.75 million that's distributed to the city

partially as needed for some of those projects

but then it can stretch out over 10 years it looked like the the full

payment of it might be as long as 10 years yeah there was a

slide here that went over that that's the one so the 4.75 it right we get paid

for each of these community benefits

at a different point in time.

So part of that is to kind of spread the payments over time

and not have them all back loaded at year 10.

And what that allows us to do is kind of gradually

program the monies as we receive them, so.

So approximately four to 500,000 a year, or 10 years.

I mean, it balances out that there might be a million here

And then something else?

Well, actually, they get paid in chunks.

So you'll see a $2 million chunk come in

at the first building permit.

You'll see a $500,000 chunk come in at the first C of O.

And then you'll see 1.75 come in with heavy grading.

And the purchase price of 500K for lot A

comes in when escrow closes, which

should be in the next number of months.

OK.

All right.

Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

Those are my questions.

Thank you.

Council Member Silva.

Thank you.

A couple of questions regarding

the purchase and sale agreement.

It frequently mentions the effective date

and I never saw what the effective date is

or what the trigger is so I could figure it out.

So the effective date is when the council takes action

to approve the agreement.

So if the council were to act this evening,

the effective date would be now,

there are some tolling provisions in the event

that there's, in the event that there's litigation

or some form of challenge to the agreement.

All right, thank you for the clarification.

The next slide, yes, the drainage.

What we're referring to is drainage from the property

toward the east to the retention ponds

in Heather Farm Park, correct?

Correct.

I know I should ask Public Works,

but I wanted to make sure that that was clear

that we're not talking drainage running

in any other different direction.

That is correct.

Mr. Mattis, a couple more questions.

In response to Councilmember Wilks' questions,

you mentioned three general plans,

the 1971, the 1989, and the 2005,

which was approved in early 2006.

You mentioned that the 19, now, okay,

The subdivision map was approved in.

Initially in 1970 in the final map, I think was 1973.

And it was through the subdivision map

and that whole process that we acquired lot A.

Correct.

And we also secured the irrevocable easement

for the right of way.

That is correct.

So who owns the land underneath the irrevocable,

for which we have the irrevocable easement?

So from what we've been able to identify,

a portion of it is owned by a private property owner

and a portion of it is owned by presumably

the Heather Farms Homeowners Association as the successor.

But it is irrevocable.

The offer of dedication is irrevocable, correct?

So among the communications we've received

in the last couple of days is a statement

that Lot A was a promise that we would never sell,

or there was a promise attached to it

that we would never sell it.

Do we have any record of that?

We do not.

The grant deed for Lot A just conveys Lot A to the city.

There are no conditions associated

with the Lot A conveyance,

nor is there what you might sometimes see

as a reversionary interest.

So if you think about when someone donates land

for a charitable purpose or something like that,

if it were ever to be used for something else.

Sometimes grant deeds will have a reversionary provision

in them, which would allow the original owner to have it.

This is just a grant deed, conveying it clear to the city.

So in 1971 general plan, there's indications,

clear indications, can I,

that there was an intent at that time,

or anticipation that Kinross would continue through

across into the Hale property?

That's correct, the 1971 general plan,

as well as an amendment to that,

which is a 1977 circulation element,

talk about the fact that the Seven Hills property,

the property we're talking about this evening

that's in the county, as I recall,

could have access from three points,

Ken Ross, Seven Hills, and one other road

that is, the name is slipping my mind right now, but.

That's some other direction.

Some other direction.

So they envisioned that there would be development.

Did it describe what kind of development

thought would happen on the Seven Hills property? I would need to look at that

again, I believe, depending again on when that when the residential zoning was

there. I do recall it was residential and I think it was something in the

something in the arena of like four four units break or something like that but

it was residential. I can take a look at that again. Okay, thank you. So is there

any indication in the 1989 general plan because there was only one sentence in

that general plan that said Kinross Drive shall not shall not at first it

said should not and then it subsequently was changed to shall not connect to

Seven Hills Ranch Road was there any indication of why any statement in there

if you to keep county traffic out or anything like that because we've been

hearing that comment as well and I know none that I can recall right now it was

just a it was a you know it was a a policy that was I that was identified in

the general plan and it you know is within the discretion of the council at

that time to have adopted that type of policy okay thank you I have I have tree

questions and wetland questions but I'll and road questions I'll let those go till

later okay thank you mayor parton okay now I'll do my Steve way more questions

but actually I'll start with my Terry question so in the staff report you talk

about the number of trees along seven Hills Road do you know you had a number

of trees there are those all highly protected trees or is that the mix we

don't know enough to know. We asked the applicant to look into the records.

Unfortunately there was not a full survey done so we know it's somewhere

around 30 but you know about the extent of our knowledge. Okay thanks. So in the

city's comment letter to... I'm sorry and Steve is looking at me like I said

something incorrect. No? Okay. In our comment letter on the draft EIR we talked

about a couple of transportation improvements that we were interested in

and I just want to kind of go through those. I know we have money in this

agreement for transportation for a broad spectrum of things but I know many of

the people in the room are really concerned about how transportation

could be improved in their neighborhood. So I kind of wanted to walk through what

we had in our comment letter and make sure I understand those. We talked about

about Ignacio Valley Road, March Banks, Tampico,

changing that signal there,

because that's one of the biggest ways

that traffic will come in and out of this area

if we approve this.

What would happen there?

Sure, good evening.

My name is Steve Weymeyer.

I'm the Assistant Public Works Director

and the City Engineer.

Several projects that we consider with this funds

and nothing has been committed

or anything by council to this point.

The first one would be possibly some improvements

at the intersection in Tampico and March Banks,

maybe put a small roundabout or something like that

in an area to help redirect traffic.

I know there's been concerns about cut through traffic

on the private section of Kenross.

And so do something to sort of alleviate that,

would be maybe one project that we would consider.

And then the other project we would consider

would be at March Banks, Ignatia Valley Road,

Southern March Banks or not Southern,

the Western March Banks intersection.

And currently the intersection, if you're on March Banks,

on either the north side or the south side,

and I know that you get the green light at the same time,

we would split those so that we could have

those separated movements and help to increase

the safety at that intersection.

And so by doing that at that intersection,

it will help, if there's increased traffic,

it will help clear traffic through the intersection

more quickly and safely?

It would make it so there's less confusion

at the intersection, which in turn,

helps people make the movement more quickly.

Okay, and then as far as the traffic at the cross

between Kinross and Marchbanks,

people coming out of the new Marchbanks connection

or Kinross connection, if you put a roundabout there,

that would tend to direct traffic down Marchbanks

and not keep people from crossing over

and heading on down the private part of Kinross?

That would be the goal.

Okay, and I know we've also talked about ways

that you could keep people off the private part

of Ken Ross during construction.

And I saw a number of discussions

about construction management and how you would do that.

What are we thinking there?

And I believe it's actually in the agreement

if council agrees to this is to actually require them

to have a flag person there during construction

to keep trucks from going through there

along with an education for the truck drivers and deliveries.

But no machine guns or anything like that.

No machine guns, no.

we have somebody there under this agreement we'd have somebody keeping

during construction keeping people keeping that traffic off of the private

section of Ken Ross that's correct okay and then are there other I think the

other traffic improvement we talked about was down at the Ken Ross La Casa

Villa intersection there was a way to improve the flow in that intersection

too and so that would be the same design that we would talk I just explained not

March, thanks.

There's several intersections like that

along Anacia Valley Road.

Our goal would be all the way up and down

in Anacia Valley Road to do this.

Since these funds are coming from this direction,

our recommendation might be to start with these projects,

and depend how far the funds would go.

And are you confident that the amount of money

that we have in the draft agreement

would give you the ability to do these kinds of projects

to help benefit the neighborhood?

I think they'd be in the close range as of today.

Okay.

Yeah, Council, I would just note that also that the way that the agreement is drafted

right now that there's a payment obligation, what the council elects to do with those funds

would be a discussion that the council would have any projects that would be undertaken

would be handled in the same way you normally do capital projects.

So they'd be part of your CIP, any necessary environmental compliance would be done as

part of that.

Yeah, I recognize that this is a separate thing that city can do later

I just want to make sure people understood. What are the types of things that could happen with?

There's also been a lot of talk about

dirt on the road

You know traffic and I saw that there was a couple things like construction management plan

Street sweeping and things like that. What are what do we typically require when you have a development like this sure?

So this is a very large project.

There's going to be a lot of trucks coming in and out.

And so we've already had some preliminary discussions

that if council approved this, what

would be some of the things we would

require from the developer?

The first thing is they would have

to get an encroachment permit that they would have

to meet our requirements for insurance.

And during construction, we would require, in general,

a lot of times on a project like this, a street sweeping.

But on this project specifically,

we're going to require them to have a truck captain and a truck

operating program so that we don't have too many trucks

backing up on the street and also to control

to how the traffic's flowing on Ignacio Valley Road.

So it has strict conditions on how many trucks can be backed

up on Ignacio Valley, on March Banks,

how many need to be held on site.

They'd have to have a whole process of how

to manage their trucks coming in and out of the site.

I've always heard it referred to as the dirt dance.

And we'll have the dirt dance going.

I think that's it for my questions for right now.

Thank you.

I have one more from, here's a member of Francois.

while you're there.

Mr. Weimar, I know that traffic improvements

in in the vicinity of kind of Heather Farm

were one of the issues we were concerned about on the EIR.

And I understand that there were many comments

made in that letter,

but that was one of the main ones

from a public work standpoint.

Drainage was another one.

And if you could kind of expand on that

and explain kind of how the EIR addressed it

and how the deal points deal with it.

Okay, without getting too much detail here,

first of all, the basic requirement of the project site

is that it can't release any more water

than it does right now.

So they have to have retention ponds

and different engineering controls

that control the water actually coming off site

because right now, it's a field,

not as much water drains off of it.

It'll be posed to be concrete,

which has a higher flow during a storm.

So the number one thing that the environmental document

and the county's gonna require

is nothing coming off the site is more than what was coming

for at a rate for a 10 year storm and 100 year storm.

So that's the very basics of what's going on.

The project that we've talking about here,

the $750,000 drainage project is the water

that's coming off from the more, I would say,

north eastern side of the project,

right above where the equestrian center is

in Heather Farm Park.

That water currently just flows off

and it sort of settles in at a low point

the roadway that kind of leads up to Seven Hill School and it's a real

nuisance for the city and for anybody else that goes through there when it

rains. The water ponds up there eventually slowly works this way to a

strange drainage system that goes on. So with this project our goal is to have

them design a system that eliminates part of that nuisance and it takes it

into a different direction so that we're not having to deal with that. It doesn't

completely take care of the situation but if you approve this it would allow

us to help take care and mitigate that problem. Thank you. Okay, one more. As long as he's

up there. Yeah, as long as you're here. Sure. In reading a number of communications, there

seems to be a perception that there's a way out of the property that's in the county is there.

that's a trick question. So right now as far as the only two, you know, entrances

and exits so far we've ever looked at is coming off of March banks and the other

be going through Seven Hills. And is Seven Hills Ranch Road in the city? So Seven

Hills Ranch Road is partially in the county and partially in the city. Like the

north side, three houses in the county and three houses in the city, something

like that? So from halfway between Homestead and Walnut Boulevard in that

area it turns into city property. Up to that it's partly it's county property in

general and then all the way up to where the bridge is where the Asia Canal

crosses or you know the Walnut Creek Canal crosses. At that point it turns

from city back to county again when it gets to Cherry Road. So so it goes in and

No matter what part of it goes through the city now, I

Reread that both the draft and the final EIRs that were done for the county and it was interesting when I read the explanation

of why

Seven Hills Ranch Road was considered the

potential better way to go

But there was a caveat and that was that it assumes

It was better from the biological standpoint so long as Seven Hills Ranch Road were to be improved

to be have the same size and

Standards as

Kinross Drive

Does Seven Hills Ranch Road have the same size and standards as Kinross Drive?

No, is it anywhere close? No, it's not even close. What would it take to get there?

Well, there's not enough right-of-way there or property available to the developer or within the county or within the city

section that would have to be widened and so there would require

property acquisition from private property owners in order to provide the width that's necessary.

A couple of inches in front of everybody's house?

No, we're looking at 17 feet I think is what I looked at in one location.

Are there trees on that property on those properties?

It depends on where you go you would see there's a swimming pool and there's actually a home edge of a home

that's in the way of actually widening it through there. So this is complicated.

It's complicated, yes. Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions from

council at this moment? I have none. You've all used up all the good

questions. So, Matt. I had one and it's a planning question and I'm happy to

get an answer offline or after the break, but the staff report refers to the area

land uses and it says lot A is zoned MFL I believe multifamily low and so I just

wanted to understand what the density range was for that designation and I

don't need an answer at this moment. Okay it's got to be small okay that being

the case it's been a long time since we've had a break and so we're gonna

take a 15-minute break y'all better be here by eight we're starting without you if you aren't.

With the holiday season now upon us I want to wish everyone a very happy holidays for you and

your family. Whether you celebrate Christmas, Kwanzaa or Hanukkah as my family does this is a

special time to be with family and friends. My family will be lighting the Hanukkah candles for

eight nights in our menorah and we look forward to celebrating with loved ones and friends

throughout this season. Wishing you all a very peaceful holiday time.

We're all enjoying the festive holiday season. As my family and friends gather this year,

I'm focusing on enjoying the time we have together while stressing less on whether everything

is picture perfect. As we turn the page on this year, please join my family as we pray

for a peaceful and rewarding new year.

Greetings, Walnut Creek.

As I reflect on this past year, I want to acknowledge all who work to make Walnut Creek

so special.

Whether you've donated food for the less fortunate, or helped to clear leaves from around your

neighborhood, it's the little things that really count.

So thank you to everyone, and best wishes for a wonderful holiday season and a joyous

new year.

I want to wish you and your family a very happy holiday season.

My wife and I are especially looking forward to having our adult children home.

We'll enjoy many of our time honored traditions and spend quality time with family and friends.

I hope that this holiday season you are also able to connect with friends and family and

reflect on the year that's been and welcome the year that is to come.

Seasons greetings.

May the new year bring good tidings to you and your family and peace to our world.

Here's Santa Claus. Looking back, 2023 has been a busy year for Walnut Creek. We have had

amazing steady staff that works really really hard to maintain and improve the services

supplied to our citizens. We have made huge strides in our recovery from the pandemic

and have adjusted to the new normal. We have expanded our law enforcement team by adding

additional police and giving them new equipment and training so they can protect our community

even better. Our economy has grown by many new restaurants and some fancy and maybe not so fancy

facilities to work out so that we all can be healthier. Our arts community and our theater

productions have brought an expanding audience to enjoy their efforts along with enjoying other

opportunities to experience shops, dining, ice skating, and more. Festivals such as the Art and

Wine and Oktoberfest attract people of all ages to have fun together. Our citizens have celebrated

those who have served our country at our Memorial and Veterans Day commemorations. We have cared

for those who are less fortunate by supporting Trinity Center, in particular the Winter Knights

Program. The city has also formalized its support for expanding efforts to welcome all people into

our community. I believe that puts Walnut Creek on your nice list. My request is pretty big and it's

for peace on earth, good will to all for this holiday season and the coming year. Your friend, Luella.

With the holiday season now upon us, I want to wish everyone a very happy holidays for you and

your family. Whether you celebrate Christmas, Kwanzaa, or Hanukkah as my family does, this is

a special time to be with family and friends. My family will be lighting the Hanukkah candles for

eight nights in our menorah and we look forward to celebrating with loved ones and friends

throughout this season. Wishing you all a very peaceful holiday time.

All enjoying a festive holiday season. As my family and friends gather this year I'm

focusing on enjoying the time we have together while stressing less on whether everything

is picture perfect. As we turn the page on this year please join my family as we pray

for a peaceful and rewarding new year. Greetings Walnut Creek. As I reflect on this past year

I want to acknowledge all who work to make Walnut Creek so special.

Whether you've donated food for the less fortunate or helped to clear leaves from around your

neighborhood, it's the little things that really count.

So thank you to everyone and best wishes for a wonderful holiday season and a joyous new

year.

I want to wish you and your family a very happy holiday season.

My wife and I are especially looking forward to having our adult children home.

enjoy many of our time honored traditions and spend quality time with family and friends.

I hope that this holiday season you are also able to connect with friends and family

and reflect on the year that's been and welcome the year that is to come. Season's greetings,

may the new year bring good tidings to you and your family and peace to our world.

Dear Santa Claus, looking back 2023 has been a busy year for Walnut Creek. We have had amazing

steady staff that works really really hard to maintain and improve the services supplied to

our citizens. We have made huge strides in our recovery from the pandemic and have adjusted to

the new normal. We have expanded our law enforcement team by adding additional police and giving them

new equipment and training so they can protect our community even better. Our economy has grown by

many new restaurants and some fancy and maybe not so fancy facilities to work out so that we all can

be healthier. Our arts community and our theater productions have brought an expanding audience

to enjoy their efforts along with enjoying other opportunities to experience shops, dining, ice

skating, and more. Festivals such as the Art and Wine and October Fest attract people of all ages

to have fun together. Our citizens have celebrated those who have served our country

at our Memorial and Veterans Day commemorations. We have cared for those who are less fortunate

by supporting Trinity Center, in particular the Winter Nights Program. The city has also formalized

it's support for expanding efforts to welcome all people into our community. I believe that puts

Walnut Creek on your nice list. My request is pretty big and it's for peace on earth,

goodwill to all for this holiday season and the coming year. Your friend, Luella.

We're back in session. And before we ask the applicants and the

appellants to come up for their 20-minute dissertations,

I'm asking the City Attorney to give us some updates.

Yeah, Mayor and Council, I just wanted to, when we were talking about the general

plan, and in particular the 1989 general plan,

in referencing the provision that said it shouldn't connect,

I reference Seven Hills Ranch.

I want to make sure that the council understands

that the language is Seven Hills Ranch Road.

So the connection is not to Seven Hills Ranch Road.

It's not to the ranch, it's to the road.

That was the language from the 1989 General Plan.

Thank you, Mayor.

You're welcome.

All right, next on our menu

is the presentation of the applicants.

They have 20 minutes

to share amongst themselves or just one person, welcome.

Thank you, I appreciate your time here tonight.

My name is Troy Bourne and I represent speaker,

the project applicant and I do not intend

to take 20 minutes.

I will try to do as staff has done

to move quickly through some of this information.

I wanna thank you for the amount of time

you spent getting ready for this meeting,

but I particularly, I'm grateful for the council,

I'm grateful for you mayor,

but the staff's been working on tonight's presentation

for effectively a year and a year before that,

reviewing the county's analysis and review

and appreciative of all the time as an applicant

that it takes to put a project like this

so that you guys can make a meaningful decision.

Although tonight's actions do not call for your review

or approval of the speaker continuing care project,

I thought it would be helpful for the council

and for the public, both those here

and those who might be watching from home

to understand the nature of the community

that the board of supervisors unanimously approved

in November of last year.

This, I guess I can click with this, there we go.

The approved project is what's referred to

as a type A continuing care retirement community,

often referred to colloquially as a life plan community.

In addition to being subject to local municipalities,

such as the county, as we've discussed

in the city here tonight, the development and operation

of these communities are also subject

to the California Department of Social Services,

the California Department of Public Health,

and as council member Darlene pointed out,

or other agencies all the way throughout the process.

The approved project consists of two primary components, an independent living neighborhood

with apartment and single story homes and related dining, transportation, housing, housekeeping,

safety and emergency response services, and fitness and recreation amenities.

The second component is a health care center, which includes assisted living, memory care,

skilled nursing facilities designed to provide higher level of services to independent living

residences who as they age may begin to need a higher level of daily support.

I'll just show you some pictures really quick and I might refer back to these in a minute

but these are the single story cottages.

These are located on the northern portion of the site, we refer to these as villas,

that's part of the independent living neighborhood.

And this is the front door of the community where you can see, and this is on the southern

portion of the site, I'll show you a site plan in just a minute, but you can see the

apartment-style homes and then some of the dining venues would be located in that campus

right in front of you where the white car is.

Here are some just images of what looks like inside some of our other communities, which

I'll talk about in just a minute, some of the services that are being provided and some

of the amenities.

This is a rendering of the one-story component of the health care center.

This is skilled nursing.

The co-location and integration of the housing, amenities, and long-term care is designed

to allow retirees to truly age in place, and age together even, as is often the case, if

members of a household require differing levels of care at the same time.

Because the cost of long-term care services is included in the typical residency agreement,

members of these communities and their families enjoy the peace of mind that comes with knowing

where they will receive quality care if they need it, and that they'll be able to do so

with a very predictable financial outlay.

The Glennet Heather Farm is the eighth California-based continuing care community the speaker team

has designed in the last 30 years.

Six are operating right now as award-winning communities in the state and a seventh is

under construction.

The closest to us is Stoneridge Creek, which is most of the images and the one that you

see right now on the screen, that is just down 680 in Pleasanton.

For years, that community has operated at capacity with hundreds of families on a wait

list hoping for the opportunity to move in when a home becomes available.

of those families are from Walnut Creek demonstrating a significant unmet need

for this type of comprehensive senior housing solution here in Walnut Creek and

I want to be clear about something because I lived there and worked there

for a long time. I know many of the residents at Stone Ridge Creek. I have

never personally met a Stone Ridge Creek resident from Walnut Creek who wanted to

move to Pleasanton. They wanted a comprehensive retirement solution for

their benefit and for the benefit of their family and they wanted to stay in Walnut Creek

near their friends, families, doctors, stores, churches.

Because an option like Stonemridge Creek does not exist here, they were forced to make tradeoffs

and relocate away from this area where they would prefer to stay.

As additional evidence of unmet local need, over 2,500 local seniors, a small sampling

of which you're here tonight, have placed deposits to join a Department of Social Services

required pre-construction waitlist for the community that we're talking about here in

Walnut Creek if it moves forward.

This is just a little sampling, but that shows you where they're located.

That blue circle is five miles from the project site, just to kind of give you a sense of

where these families are coming from that are hoping to move into the care community

when it's completed.

Importantly, in each of our communities throughout California, Speaker has become a long-term

partner with the surrounding community by being a long-term owner and steward

of each of the properties. For Steep Speaker, that partnership effort begins

before a project is proposed. Before we submitted our application to Contra

Costa County in August of 2020, over three years ago, before then, we began

outreach efforts to local neighbors, interested seniors, local, state, and

federal agency staff members, elected officials, and other stakeholders to

discuss the proposed care community

and to listen to their suggestions and concerns.

We started those outreaches,

now just to kind of date this a little bit,

with simple neighbor Zoom meetings.

Why?

Because we weren't able to meet in person,

if you remember that.

Then when COVID restrictions eased,

we began outreach in person.

I've personally presented at over 50

project introduction luncheons,

each with close to 100 participants.

taking questions for hours at a time.

We've spent many hours visiting with project opponents,

trying to understand and resolve their concerns.

And we have opened an office just down the street

from the project site where interested neighbors

can view plans and a 3D model of the proposed community.

We received great feedback and suggestions

through this outreach effort and many of those comments

made their way into the project design

that the county approved.

And I'll share some of those examples in just a minute.

As staff described, once our application was submitted,

The county began a multiyear review process,

including several public hearings

and comprehensive environmental analysis,

including analysis of the Ken Ross extension

that we're discussing tonight as staff addressed at length

in their staff report for you this evening.

The county's findings were published

and open to review and comment by members of the public,

as well as relevant local, state and federal agencies

and other stakeholders and just neighbors.

Their comments were reviewed and responded to

and additional project improvements were made

to accommodate some of those concerns

prior to the county's unanimous vote of approval

over a year ago.

An early request we heard from neighbors

was that we make a meaningful effort

to preserve the drainage way that bisects the site.

I'll show you a picture of that right now.

This is taken from the property

looking towards the concrete and cased Walnut Creek

that's in the background.

In our pre-designed work, we met with regulatory agencies

to verify wetland delineations

and designed the care community around those constraints.

Setbacks were designed to permanently protect this wetland

and further enhancements were proposed,

including removing an existing earthen dam and culvert

with a bridge that now restores or will restore

or span the restored environmental area.

I kind of want to, I'm going to cheat a little bit here, okay?

This is that area you can see,

and this is the Army Corps of Engineers Delineation,

but if you can see on the screen,

that entire area of green going right through the site

is the area that's being permanently protected.

And this area, the laser beam's not going,

oh, there it is.

Right here is where that bridge,

I'm trying to see really steady here.

This is the giveaway that somebody's nervous

when they can't keep their red pointer still.

But right there is where that bridge goes.

Staff mentioned an area of wetland

in the Kenross extension that's in the roadway easement.

By comparison, in terms of the areas

that we're completely preserving and protected

versus the areas that we're needing to mitigate for,

That's this green dot right there.

Okay?

In addition, you can see how we've kept the community.

We've buttressed it up here.

There's your bridge right there

to stay completely out of that waterway.

And this is kind of one of my favorite things.

I'm sorry if it's a little bit of a rabbit hole,

but these artist renderings now are really neat.

So this is a CAD design drawing.

It's exactly how it looks and where it's supposed to go.

But one of the things it doesn't capture

is the design of these walls

that keep the community out of the waterway.

And I want to show you a photo of what these look like

at our existing communities.

This is not an artist's rendering.

That's a photograph I took on my iPhone.

They're planted walls, they're absolutely stunning,

and they really help keep that space

feeling native and natural.

Another consistent request we heard during early outreach

were so that we surgically designed the community

to preserve the important trees on the Hale property.

This one is my favorite, that's why that picture's up there,

and you can see the wetland kind of behind it.

that whole area gets preserved, including the tree.

Everyone knew that use of the site

would require trees to be removed.

And many were identified as not appropriate for retention,

either because they were in poor health,

or in some cases because they were identified

by the California Invasive Plant Inventory

as increasing risk of catastrophic wildland fires.

These include, I'm not gonna go through the list

of all the different types of eucalyptus

that are found on the site,

but also Mexican fan palms and others.

We're proud that the plan protects 81

suitable protected trees in and around the community.

In addition, well, including my favorite one right there,

in addition, 281 of the nearly 1,100 new trees

to be planted as part of the new care community.

281 will be oak trees in sizes up to 60, 72 and 120 inch boxes.

These are not saplings.

Additionally, neighbors asked it to the extent possible

work to preserve the views of existing homeowners that neighbor the property.

And I'm going to show you a site plan right now where you can see where we tried to do

that.

You can see accommodations in the extensive landscape setbacks on the projects, what I'm

going to refer to as east boundary near the adjacent townhome development.

So if you can see on your screen right now, these gray boxes right here are existing townhomes.

And you can see what those setbacks look like to the property line.

And now look at this huge buffer right here with retained trees running all the way along

are trying to respect and give them as much space as possible.

You can also see it in the preservation of the site's

contours on the north half of the site,

where single-story homes sit on terraced, single-loaded streets.

And for those of you who are in development,

you'll appreciate that that's a much less efficient and more

expensive way to build single-story homes.

You'd like to build one road and build a house

on both sides of the road.

It's very efficient.

Where here, you see, because these homes

at the bottom of a terrace, then there's a road, then these homes are above it, then

there's a road, then these homes are above it, so you're mirroring, you're trying to

flow with the natural contours of the site protecting this high point up here.

You can also see it in the preservation, and this was mentioned earlier by the county and

someone asked a question, and our commitment to providing 2.4 acres to the county as well

as funding if they choose to use it to provide a trail along the creek in this buffered space

running all the way along the creek right here.

In addition, you'll notice that the taller buildings are concentrated on the southern

portion of the site furthest from the neighboring homes.

Uh-oh.

There you go.

Thanks.

Which of these buildings right here?

Traffic generation was another frequently raised issue, and the county's analysis and

their environmental studies confirmed that as designed, the care community produces considerably

less traffic impact than the previously considered tract of single-family homes.

I'm going to use some numbers here just so we're on the same page.

Not a minor reduction in traffic, about 30 percent less than the traffic that was supposed

to go here.

But as traffic engineers who might be hiding in the corners know that total traffic is

not really what drives impact on our roads, it's peak period traffic.

And this community, as proposed, brought more than a 50 percent reduction in peak period

traffic compared to the housing track that was being considered.

And I think while I'm on this,

just because comments were made earlier,

while speaker has committed to make community benefits

to Walnut Creek, we're excited to be here

and I'll talk some more about this in just a minute,

but I wanna make clear that the CEQA studies

did not require the roadway improvements

that were discussed by staff

as a condition of our approval

because our traffic levels

did not require those improvements.

We didn't have an impact large enough

to justify the improvements

that we've voluntarily chose to offer

to the city this evening.

Some people in the neighborhood have expressed concerns

about regular commercial semi-trailer trucks.

Heavy truck traffic is frankly not part of our business.

We plan to receive delivery of food products

to the dining venues about twice a week,

which I think we can all agree is considerably less

than the Amazon truck is in our neighborhoods today.

We were also asked by the county

to design a financial assistance program,

expanding access to local seniors

who might otherwise struggle with the costs

of living in a community like this.

And we committed to millions of dollars

in a program that is now described in county documents

as a condition of approval for opening the community.

We were also able to meet and resolve concerns

with Seven Hill School, including moving some

of the buildings that were originally designed

in locations to ease pressure on their campus,

as well as some construction timelines

that helped them navigate some of the changes

that would happen.

Now perhaps not surprisingly, we were not able to address all of the neighbor's concerns.

Some wanted to see the site remain completely undeveloped, donated, or sold to a public

agency or land bank.

Others were excited about our low-impact senior care use.

They were familiar with our other communities, but they wanted to see it built at a much

smaller scale.

The nature of comprehensive Type A continuing care retirement communities where services,

amenities and long-term care for life are included requires scale in order to be financially

feasible.

As designed, this is the smallest care community that we have proposed in more than 30 years.

Put frankly, it cannot be built with fewer units without compromising the very attributes

that enable it to be an attractive solution to seniors.

The purpose of this evening's meeting

is to address access, another issue

that was frequently raised and one which we cannot solve

to everybody's satisfaction.

And it's probably intuitive why.

Many neighbors may be excited about the care community,

but even if the resident traffic is low,

they want to see it come and go through two streets

that they do not use themselves.

Somebody else's street.

Before designing the community, we, as speaker,

evaluated three routes to provide primary access

to the property, and these were considered in the IR.

We concluded that the 50-foot-wide

Kenross Drive extension was the most viable.

As staff mentioned in its report this evening,

access through Seven Hills Ranch Road

would require significant road widening

onto private homeowners' property.

I'm so grateful that that question was asked,

that it's not always just about streams and trees,

but sometimes taking private property

from residents of the city can be a significant impairment.

And that's the case here.

It would require the removal of additional trees,

distribution of traffic patterns

through a school neighborhood

with limited improvements to sidewalks

and disruption of a natural drainage system.

Primary access through North San Carlos Drive,

do you guys know where that is?

We haven't talked about it a lot.

But theoretically, someone could say,

well, why don't you just go through here

where Seven Hills Ranch, Seven Hills School is?

would also require a loss of significant oak trees

because it's too narrow.

If you go walk it and you see those big oak trees

on both sides of that narrow access road.

It would require residents and employees

to traverse the entirety of Heather Farms Park

if they wanted to come to the community

and would conflict with existing concentrated school drop-off

and pickup congestion at Seven Hills School.

As analyzed in the county EIR,

the designation of the Kinross Drive extension

as the property's primary access

respects the historical concern regarding cut through traffic

by gating Seven Hills Ranch Road and North San Carlos Drive,

closing them to all but emergency traffic.

I'm grateful for the city attorney.

There were some comments made earlier,

and this has been probably one of my veins

for the last three plus years that we've worked on this,

is people have heard that previous general plans,

definitively not the current one,

but previous general plans had a prohibition

of connecting Kenross to Seven Hills Ranch Road.

And sometimes people speak in shorthand

and they say preventing Seven Hills,

Kinrass from connecting to Seven Hills Ranch.

But those are two completely different concepts, okay?

This project, by its definition,

by gating both of the alternative access points,

prohibits cut-through traffic.

Kinrass Drive is not connected to Seven Hills Ranch Road.

And it honors the intent,

even though it's no longer required

as part of your current general plan.

Tree removal permits associated with the extension

have been evaluated in advance of this evening's action,

including in the EIR.

And as one of the appellants,

I want to share the speaker's concerns

regarding the zoning administrative decision

have been resolved and need not be addressed.

We're comfortable with the city's higher cost estimate

and we're comfortable paying that number.

Impact to the small seasonal wetland

and the right of where the small wetland

were evaluated as part of county's environmental review,

mitigation measures were identified and required,

resulting in less than significant impacts after mitigation.

As a condition of approval,

we will continue to work with all relevant agencies

to ensure that mitigation measures are completed

consistent with appropriate regulations.

I thought council member Darlene,

I thought your question was perfectly appropriate,

which is what if, what have you,

but you don't have all of your permits today.

There are so many permits that we don't have today.

We don't have a grading permit.

We don't have a building permit.

We don't have a certificate of occupancy,

but we have passed to all of those things

and we will continue to pursue them.

Yes, we do anticipate receiving a 401 and a 404,

but if I commit to a date,

I will certainly be wrong and embarrass myself,

but we have no reason to believe

that those won't be secured.

Some of you know, and I'll wrap up,

that I've served a couple terms or my second term

on my local city council.

So I've sat on your side of the dais

and understand a little bit of what it's like

to evaluate decisions from your side of the bench.

I acknowledge that complicated and controversial projects

like the one before you tonight, they're difficult.

These aren't the most fun meetings.

Maybe for some of you they are,

they aren't for me when I'm sitting in your chairs.

You cannot make everyone happy with your decision.

Some people really want you to vote one way tonight.

Some people really want you to vote another way tonight.

Somebody will be excited

and somebody will be disappointed at the end of the meeting.

But I also believe that you have the opportunity tonight

to help facilitate a project in Walnut Creek

that will stand the test of time as a quality,

like 15 seconds, 20 seconds,

quality addition to a great community.

As staff indicated in your report this evening,

the city and region need more care-based senior housing,

and the project the county approved on Hale Ranch

will simply be the best in this area, period.

I represent an experienced award-winning project applicant

that has worked for years to both listen to

and resolve key stakeholder concerns.

Like yours, our decisions cannot satisfy everyone,

but I believe speaker has demonstrated its willingness

to work with its future neighbors and other stakeholders.

And also through the very actions

that you're reviewing tonight,

has demonstrated a willingness to generously partner

with the broader community we hope to join and serve.

Thank you.

Okay, cut off just to make a time.

Yeah. Thank you.

We can ask questions, please.

Council Member Silva.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for the presentation.

You've answered a lot of my questions,

which is why not a smaller project?

I think you said if it gets too small, it's unviable.

The commercial trucks, I will admit,

and unbeknownst to anyone in this room,

I went and looked at the project in Pleasanton

last Friday morning during peak hours

to see what arrived and what left.

It was small trucks, a few.

And the traffic counts, because I was counting cars,

aligned with the environmental report.

Thank you for answering the question

about no cut through traffic.

So it's basically San Carlos through the park

and Seven Hills Ranch Road will not allow

for vehicular traffic through there.

I'm correct.

Let me just clarify.

They will only, because Council Member Wilk

got that asked a question earlier too,

is if something happened here and there was an emergency

and everybody needed to get out,

there are three access points to this property.

The two connections that you just described,

Council Member Silva, are emergency only.

So fire trucks can get in, emergency can get in

if someone needed to.

In fact, I think that's one of the reasons

that Seven Hills Ranch School at some point

stopped and realized, like, hang on a second,

we're all the way down at this corner

of this tiny little road if there was an emergency,

while we were just granted multiple other access points

that a fire truck can get to can do some of these things.

So there are connections points,

but they're closed to vehicular traffic

so that they can't be cut through.

Someone can avoid Ignacio Valley

by trying to cut through the community

and get from Seven Hills Ranch to Kinross, for instance.

Do you have any sense, thank you.

Do you have any sense of when the property

was put on the market maybe five years ago,

maybe six years ago close to it,

it was designated for residential?

Correct.

Were there other offers?

There were, and my understanding is that we were not

the high bidder on the project.

Typically, when a property is entitled

single-family residential, a single-family residential buyer will purchase the property.

I can share with you conversations that we had with the owners representatives at the

time because I was excited but not optimistic because I knew that we couldn't compete a

lot of times with buyers when they had an entitled project sitting kind of in front

of them with that designated use.

I think that the Hale family felt like the two things.

The community would respond better to a use that had such significantly lower traffic

impacts which was the experience we had in Pleasanton as well where it was going

to be residential and they came back and said well look at this there's so much

less traffic and then the community came around to it and I think they felt like

this was a little bit more of the Hale family went down and toured our other

projects wanted to see what it was and felt like this was a little bit more of

a legacy than then a single-family home development would have been.

Some would are supportive of the project some are not and we always talk about

interactions with the neighbors are very important

in the proposals for new development,

whether they're commercial, residential,

or something in between.

What kind of meetings have you had with the HOA,

the neighbors in the Heather Farms area?

Our very first meetings were with the immediately adjacent

neighbors on Zoom.

We let them know that we were going to be purchasing

the property and wanted to talk to them about it then.

Those were our very first ones.

I've met with members of the HOA board multiple times

before the project was applied for.

Since the project was approved,

I met in their clubhouse with the president

and vice president.

And we discussed things that we could do

to assist with the HOA.

They had originally asked for some assistance

with different programs around the community

with gate locks and things like that.

Some of the things that they asked for

we couldn't comply with, as I mentioned before.

One of the things I didn't mention in my port was

They wanted the trail, some of the members of that HOA

wanted the trail not to go on the perimeter of the property

but to go right through the property

and have access to kind of that high null,

which you can appreciate given our recent experience

with COVID, we weren't able to have a public pathway

kind of going right through the residential care facility.

So we couldn't do it.

There were some things we couldn't do

but we tried to accommodate where we could.

Thank you, thank you, Mayor.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Bourne for the presentation.

In terms of the public pathway,

And you alluded to it briefly, about two and a half acres.

Two point four acres, yeah.

To the county and that's on the north side.

Yeah, I think that I can never quite tell

which way's north or west, but the creek side.

We're gonna call that west, northwest.

And is that publicly accessible?

It would be, so we've made a, you know,

not dissimilar from the roadway easement

that's kind of a perpetual offer.

The county can take it if they choose.

And we gave them funding that they could

if they chose to use to make that improvement.

And then you mentioned the replacement trees.

Those are for trees that are on the property proper,

not in the Kinross extension, is that right?

Correct, the Kinross extension is gonna be paved.

Yeah. Mm-hmm.

Well, I mean, those are the replace trees

that are being removed on the property proper.

Both. Yeah, okay.

The mitigation measures are also considered in the EIR

for the trees being removed from Kinross.

And then can you speak a little bit about how what actions

speaker is prepared to take to ensure

that both construction traffic and operational traffic

will not use the private Ken Ross extension?

Yeah, so comment was made earlier

about using a flag man, particularly doing grading

and construction activities.

We're not opposed to that.

We're comfortable with that.

We think it's appropriate.

We don't want any of our employees

or particularly not construction traffic

going through that private section.

And some of you live there.

I've driven through there.

Don't be mad of a friend who lives there.

It's not a cut through.

Anybody who's driven it knows that it takes longer

to go there than it does to go around.

But we're very comfortable during construction.

We can definitely have, you know,

each of our employees of a community like this

are different than employees of maybe an apartment complex.

They go through a rigorous training background check.

So it's very easy for us to put through

as part of the employee training program.

These are the approved pathways and areas

where we don't wanna see you driving through.

Are there other documents, CC&Rs, or so forth,

for the members that live there

that prohibit them from using?

Well, to be clear, I don't know that I can prohibit them,

but I can certainly put a policy

in the package of papers that they sign that says,

hey, we made an agreement with the neighbors

to minimize any access of this road.

But if they come back and say their sister lives there,

then I'm in trouble.

But yeah, we're very comfortable educating

both the residents and the employees.

Again, there's no benefit to us to use that,

or frankly, for people who want to get to our project

using it. It's windy, it's slower, it has speed bumps, it's tight. I don't think it's

an intuitive path of travel, but we're comfortable providing education to employees, to residents,

and also a flag man during construction. You mentioned there are some former Walnut

Creek residents that live at your facility in Pleasanton. Do you have statistics in terms

of numbers? I don't, but I could provide it to you within

a week. That's all I had. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Uh, Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you. Um,

and I realize that the the wetlands jurisdiction is not something that the city is, but I wanted

to make sure that a lot of people have been interested in the wetlands along Kenross.

It sounds like you had a conversation with your staff that are working with the regional board

and the core. I know you had a number of options given to you in your county permit. You could

use a mitigation bank, you could do on-site, or you could do something off-site. Have you guys

picked a direction that you're going? We're trying to do it on-site. You're trying to do it on-site?

Yep. Have you looked at the possibility of doing it somewhere else, like over at Heather Farm,

you know, if there's mitigation opportunities and enhancement there? I'm open to having that

conversation. A little bit hesitant at this stage in the game I think they

expect the permits within single-digit weeks at this point so if we change

gears too sharply late in the game that might throw a wrench but I'm open to

having those conversations. Okay but you so you're anticipating that it's not the

404 analysis process typically does include options and alternatives but it

sounds like you're confident that that process is going to come back to an

an option or an alternative that works

with the access that you're proposing on kid.

We're confident that we'll get that work done, yeah.

Okay.

The other question I had,

I was looking at the Corps of Engineers

wetlands delineation map,

and there's an extra parcel on there

that you had the delineation done on.

Does the speaker corporation own that extra lot

next to Homestead?

So there's no speaker corporation,

but speaker related parties do own another piece of project,

a property that is not related to the project

being applied for tonight.

Not related to the project, no.

In any way.

Okay.

You don't know what's gonna happen to it?

Let me tell you something, Mayor Pro Tem,

that I said to something earlier this weekend,

someone on my own team says, are you serious?

We have not spent 60 minutes in entirety

talking or thinking about that piece of property.

It's very important to us that that be internally

and externally something completely unrelated

to the project that we are discussing tonight.

I don't anticipate knowing what's gonna happen there

for years, if at all.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, anybody else?

I've got two really short questions.

The first is probably just for my own personal benefit

and that is, when you build the new properties,

are you taking into consideration

all the sustainability things that we would encourage people

in Walnut Creek to be using?

Yes, and sometimes in our industry, that's tough.

like all electric stuff and different things like that.

Yeah, it's, we're, everybody's moving in that direction

and we want to be contributing members

of the community in that way as well.

So you'll see solar, you'll see electric,

where which particularly would have done gas

and you'll see that throughout the EIR

and the conditions of approval.

Electric car charging stations all over the place.

I remember, you know, years ago,

we were getting a project approved in Southern California

and they gave us these electric car charging numbers

and we, I just rolled my eyes.

I mean, there is no way ever that many residents would be.

And I was very, very wrong.

Yes.

So there's a lot of electric cars in these communities now

and we're prepared to respond.

Good, the second one is,

when we're talking about an entrance,

that's the main entrance,

what do you think the length of the most busiest time queue

is to get in and out using that?

I wish I had a picture, which is sometimes in some of our marketing brochures, and we

get criticized regularly because it was just taken, like, what's the word, we take a picture

that's not posed?

What's the word my kid calls it?

They mean...

Candid.

Candid, thank you.

It's a candid, but it has these two couples walking down the middle of the road to go

get dinner.

That probably more than anything else gives you a sense for the traffic backlog in a continuing

care retirement community.

I have been coming and going from our communities for 20 years.

I have never been behind more than two cars that I can recall.

And that's me coming in in the morning.

They're just not traffic generators.

It's not the nature.

If you think about who the residents are, and maybe a few statistics might be a little

bit in, when I say this, you'll be like, okay, I guess that makes sense.

legally required to have fewer than two or two or fewer residents in each, right?

When the community opens, okay, residents will move in on average in the second half

of their 70s and they'll move in an occupancy of about 1.6.

Is it okay if I speak this directly?

Okay.

Within the first 10 years, that average occupancy will drop to 1.2 as we have more widows and

winter words than we did when they originally moved in and that will stabilize at that number.

very few of them commute, okay. No, but you maybe. I think there's been some, some people

said yes but there are employees, okay. Even if you added an employee to every single home

in the community, you still wouldn't get to the average household size that a regular

single family home has in Walnut Creek and they're still not driving to work in the morning.

the traffic use just as it's one of the most benign traffic uses in use.

Thank you. I'm looking to see if there are any more council questions. I see none. So you are

dismissed. Thank you. All righty. Which then gives the

appellant number two their chance at 20 minutes. Good evening and you may have guessed I'm not

I'm standing in for Mr. Tsai on behalf of the Homeowners Association this evening.

My name's Rachel Doty from Green Fire Law, and so I'll be raising a couple of issues.

I know you got some new comments from Mr. Tsai's office a few minutes ago, and I want

to try to use a lot of this time actually to respond to some questions that you all

have raised.

But first, while you're not being asked directly to approve this project, you are indirectly

being asked to approve this project, which is why Mr. Bourne focused on the whole project

when he spoke to you.

Because what has been called a spite strip that you are being asked to sell to the developer

is your leverage to make sure that your community's values and your general plan's vision for

for your community are fulfilled.

And so one thing that you and your staff

have an obligation, of course, to do with any project

is to make sure that the actions you take,

including approving that purchase

or this right-of-way dedication

is to be consistent with your general plan's direction.

And so I want to raise a few things for you

because when I looked through this,

and you're given a lot of discretion, it's true,

in interpreting your general plan.

So when I looked through the general plan,

I said, well, is this project consistent

with the general plan?

And so first, starting at a really high level,

what the general plan envisions is that you have a downtown,

which is where you have dense downtown development.

And I think Mr. Wilkes had something like,

yeah, that's where the housing goes earlier

on the other issue that was before you tonight,

like the dense housing, the new dense housing.

And so this is a dense project,

particularly the multi-family unit, the apartment unit,

and the hospital care part of the project.

And so that dense housing in your plan, generally speaking,

is downtown so that you can focus your pedestrian ways,

so that you can focus your public transit, those things.

And then as you spread out from that,

you have less dense development.

Now that's what the city has spent money

and time planning for the vision for the city.

And so you can always change that,

but that is your current general plan right now.

And so when you make a decision regarding this right of way

or the lot A, you're supposed to be consistent

with the general plan.

So a couple of things that I wanna focus on

starting with transportation is minimize congestion,

continuity of trails.

So both pedestrian and bike trails,

the protection of neighborhoods.

So you have now what will have delivery trucks

and other access going through neighborhoods

and dead ending here.

And all that traffic gets funneled onto the one road

that comes out of the proposed development.

So also there was a question that was asked about hillside

and is this consistent with our environmental direction?

And the answer to that is no,

because some of the frustration that we had in looking

and making comments originally to the county

was that some of the requirements for things

like steep slope development

and that continuity of bike paths

would have had different requirements

had this been in the city.

So when you're looking at this project proposal

and asking is it consistent with our general plan,

You can consider those things now.

Preservation of hillsides, so the high point

in the development now will be lower

as a result of this plan.

And there's a lot of flattening,

so the tops of hills are sliced off,

and then there's fill.

That's why you saw those contours

in the villa development part of this.

It's not going to follow the natural contours anymore.

There were questions about wetlands.

Preservation of wetlands is part of

the preservation of natural water courses

is part of your general plan.

So this is going to have the main entrance

to the development going through a wetland

and going through a tree grove.

A grove is more than two trees.

So in approving this project,

then you're taking out a grove of trees

that right now is a focal point

at that turn point on Kenross Drive.

So that will instead now be a street

where now you have a wetland going up to a hill.

there was a question, there were a few questions

about wetlands, 401, 404 consistency.

They don't yet have those permits.

They say they're optimistic about the permits,

but they don't have them, and they've been seeking them

for a long period of time.

So I think perhaps implied in the question, maybe not,

was, well, we're gonna give a tree permit,

what if they cut the trees down

and then they don't get the 404 permit?

So that is something to consider here.

You could approve this, you could transfer the land to them,

and then they might not get their 404 permit,

the 404-401 may require them to move the access point to a different place because that is one

of the things that the water board raised is that they haven't exhausted the option to access the

property at a different place. So cutting down trees might be for naught. And then with regard

to dedication of land, I wanted to point to an issue in the staff report. The dedication of land,

generally speaking, is irrevocable, but there is a time when it's not irrevocable. And that time is

when the right-of-way dedication was with access to a public waterway. And so here you

have a federally recognized wetland. And so in that case, then the right-of-way dedication

revoked within within three years. So there there's a question whether or not you have the right to

take that right to take that dedication at this point. Financial impacts and looking through the

staff report there was a lot of emphasis placed on the positive financial and potential financial

impacts to the city but not so much discussion of the potential negative impacts to the city.

So, when this development, there was a question about impact fees also.

So the development presented itself as housing for our H&A purposes, but then presented itself

as commercial for purposes of impact fees.

So impact fees aren't being paid in the county for parkland, for some of the schools, for

other things that libraries, things that would normally be required for a development.

And now when they're coming to you here, instead of being commercial, they're presenting themselves

again as residential.

So it just shouldn't be both ways.

With regard to financial impacts, you need to think about the impacts I think that this

development will have on the city, particularly since all the traffic will be routed through

the city.

So naturally, the city is going to be what the people in the development, the staff will

access through the city, the people living in the residential units will be using the city for

things like libraries, for the roads, for hospitals, for emergency services, and so please do consider

that five million dollars over the course of 10 years may not actually cover all the impacts that

you could expect from this development, particularly if you don't annex it and have the tax benefit.

With regard to CEQA, I'll defer to Mr. Tsai's

previous written communications for the most part

because he has, I think, exhausted that issue

and there are some serious concerns there.

But one thing to consider is mitigation.

Previous mitigation, there's been some allusions

to earlier promises made.

And in looking at the 2004 second dedication,

There was, it looks as if there was wetlands

that were saved along one side

of the proposed road right-of-way.

On the dedication, it says save, save, save, save, save.

And if that is in fact the case

under the recent Save the Garaventa Hill case,

then you have to consider

and disclose to the public that mitigation.

You can't just ignore that mitigation

and move ahead with the project.

So that needs to be more thoroughly examined.

There were hypotheticals given about,

oh, well, what if there were a residential development here?

What if there were a different kind of development?

But those projects aren't before you.

This project is before you.

And they're asking you to sell a latte

and accept an earlier dedication with regard to this project.

And it seems obvious that that narrow strip

may have been leverage provided to you

by earlier city council members or city planners,

and so if you give that up now

and this project doesn't happen,

you won't have it going forward.

So if this project doesn't happen,

or if you don't give that away,

then you still have it in the future

if this project doesn't go through

because the 404 dedications, for example,

or 404 compliance doesn't happen.

With regard to mitigation,

one other point is that, generally speaking,

The core requires avoidance, then minimization, and then mitigation.

So we've heard now that there's a potential proposal for onsite mitigation, but that wasn't

examined before.

So that could have implications for 404, also for where the road is, and also for cracking

CEQA back open, frankly, if it wasn't examined before.

There was discussion of the public pathway that was dedicated potentially along the flood

along the drainage area that and that is in a floodplain which is

undevelopable. So if there was an implication that that was that was a

gift then then that's not exactly how that came about. And I think that I have

hit most of the points but I'd be happy to answer questions and again I

apologize. I was working on this about a year ago and came back in later so

hopefully I'll be able to answer any questions you may have and if not again

and Mr. Sy has submitted substantial comments.

Thank you.

We have a little gain of time.

Are there any other, are there questions from the council?

I have one.

Could you repeat your comment about the trail dedication?

Because I don't, where do you think that trail is?

Because it's not in the middle of the property.

No, it's not in the middle of the property, that's right.

It's along the border that's often portrayed at the top.

I'm not sure if that's exactly north,

but that's portrayed at the top.

And I've actually walked along an area there.

It's closed to the public currently

in terms of the ability to walk on part of that.

And it is along the top of a drainage canal.

Correct.

So were you saying that the county doesn't know what it knows?

I'm confused.

I think there was some resistance from the county

to even accepting it because it was more

of a management challenge,

then it was a gift to the public.

Okay.

Well, the county representative left,

but I'm not gonna argue with you.

Any other questions?

Mayor Pertin?

No, I think we're finished with you.

All right.

I believe that we are now at a public testimony,

and if you are a group,

and one of you speaks, you get 10 minutes.

If you are a single person, you get two minutes each

to make your points.

And that would be what we do now.

And in order to do that, if you would like to make a comment

about what was discussed earlier,

would you please, in groups of five,

line up behind the podium there.

And somebody is graciously demonstrating how to do that.

Thank you.

Okay, so if you're gonna make a comment,

be ready to get there,

because we want this to go as efficiently as possible.

If you come and you ask for the 10 minutes

as the leader of the group,

we are gonna trust you that anybody in your group

get up and try and get an extra two minutes out of it.

So let's, everybody?

Well, wait, we can-

Is this four or a yes?

It doesn't make any difference.

Does it make any difference?

Okay, and if the line gets real long,

you can stay in your seat and then move as their room,

his room to do it.

Or you can get up now.

Okay, you have been very patient

and thank you for being our demonstrated speaker.

Would you give us your name please?

Yes, good evening council members.

I have a sick son at home so I am gonna make this quick

and get back home to him.

My name is Caroline Love and I am here to ask you to vote

no on selling the residential zoned lot A to a corporation.

Any reasonable person, especially our very capable

Walnut Creek Council, would recognize this area

as residential.

I know that because I live there with my husband

and our young son on Club Euterus,

which is the street that Kenross Drive

becomes in the cul-de-sac,

which are all single family homes.

When we bought our home 13 years ago,

The Lot A land was communicated as guaranteed residential use.

Do not make this sale impacting thousands of families and endangering my family's health

and property.

Councilmember Silva, earlier tonight you mentioned the homeless epidemic and the desperate need

for more residential housing in Walnut Creek.

The people in the most need will not benefit from a multi-million dollar retirement development.

The project proposed solves no problems in our community, but will create many problems,

including the many questions you have asked the corporation tonight with unverifiable

answers.

Please vote no on selling Lot A, especially until you fully understand the real ramifications.

Please use your power for good.

Do not give our land to a corporation who will destroy our peaceful community with years

of construction and misuse of this beautiful land.

Thank you.

Yes.

My name is Richard Scow, and I am for the sale.

I currently live in Rancho Paraiso, which is a unit that's been before the Council on

other issues, and so I'm familiar with what you're faced with.

And having lived in the community for over 25 years, my wife and I are in our 80s, and

we're looking for a retirement area.

And we want to stay in the community where we've spent so much time and have grown in

the area with churches and friends and different things in our life that we want to continue.

And we hope that you recognize that

and that you will consider that as you make this decision.

This seems to be a small decision

in this little piece of strip of property.

I don't know, people seem to indicate

that they were trying to have some ulterior motives

or something maybe in considering this property

being for sale.

But I really don't think so.

I think it's just something that is just kind of developed.

And so you've got a major decision to make.

I'm happy that I'm not in your shoes

to make this decision, but I hope you've listened to what the representative of Biker has said.

I think he's a very honest man. I didn't come in with this any preconceived ideas. I've just

kind of listened to people and heard what they've said and based upon the number of people that

have expressed an interest as potential homeowners in this unit, we're all just wondering are we

going to be able to accommodate all of us because we're on an owner's list that there's

only a certain number of people that can get in there and we're kind of sitting there saying

we don't know whether we're going to make it or not.

And that's important to us as we retire.

Also they talk about other developments.

I think I've just recently found out that the council approved another recent development

in the shade lands, it's called Oakmont,

and I think that all has to go together.

Thank you.

Good evening, Council.

My name is Dodie Davenport.

I've been a resident of Walnut Creek since 1985.

I'm urging you to please vote no on the sale of lot A.

Even the County Planning Commission,

only one of their whole entire body voted for it.

The vast majority of the county's own Planning Commission

was against this development,

and the proposed Kinross access.

They questioned the assumptions of the traffic study

and they felt that the development

was outsized for the parcel.

This sale would just be short-term game

at having long-lasting negative impacts to our community

and the natural habitat.

So I'm just asking that you please hold off on the sale

until we can get a development

that is more fit for that location.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Karen Saig.

I am a resident of Walnut Creek, a place that I love dearly and would love to live here

as long as possible.

As a homeowner, I realize that our lives change.

As we get older, it becomes more difficult for the upkeep and care of a home, harder

to think about having to replace a roof or the broken pipes in the yard.

And when I heard about the Glen, I thought, Aha, here's the solution.

I'm a long time active participant in the Assistance League, which is housed here in

Walnut Creek and deals with volunteering for all sorts of residents throughout the Contra

Costa County.

I hope to continue volunteering there for as long as possible.

On a fun note, I have to say, I love playing tennis and bridge and water aerobics and all

those opportunities would be at the Glen also.

Now that I realize is for me.

That's what I would get for it.

But for Walnut Creek, it is such a plus.

It will be such an asset that you will care for your senior citizens, understand there

is a need there.

The monetary benefits will be tremendous and I urge you strongly to vote yes for the sale

of Lotte A. Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Ann Hassett and I'm here to ask you to vote no on the sale of Lotte A. And

I have a couple questions really.

being, what do you say to somebody like me who lives in Heather Farms development, sitting

right above Latte, along with eight or nine other homes, where this is really going to

impact us, our property values, our way of life, our peace and quiet, all the reasons

we moved to the area in the first place.

So now, when I look out my dining room window,

I will be looking at the development, which

isn't in question.

It's already a done deal.

That's going when it was voted in.

But now, I'm looking out the other window at lot A.

And I know it sounds very personal.

And it's just one person.

And as you said, not everybody is going to leave here tonight

being happy.

But it really impacts the neighborhood, all of us

who live along there and pay, you know,

my property value will definitely go down.

I bought my home four years ago.

It checked all the boxes, and now all those boxes are,

you know, it's a whole different deal.

I get that.

But the Lade, I'm wondering why North San Carlos

is in a pathway into this development.

It's already exist.

It doesn't go through a neighborhood.

You turn left, it goes right into the back of the property.

It already exists.

There's traffic lights.

I'm not sure why that isn't a possibility.

Does anyone know?

Yeah.

So anyway, that's my request that you vote.

We don't respond to questions like that.

So sorry, we're not ignoring you, we just don't.

Okay, I get it, I get it.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Denise Calm.

I live as the crow flies a short distance from this property

and I've lived here for 40 years in Walnut Creek

and been an active participant and volunteer.

I'm near retirement age and I was excited about this property.

One concern I had, how close is it to John Muir Hospital?

And I'll tell you why I'm saying this

because my husband died two months ago,

and we were close enough that he could get to the emergency

room.

Two months later, he died.

I see that personally.

But for you, you need us to get out of the homes

we own in Walnut Creek.

And as they explained, most of us live here.

I live in a townhouse.

That's going to be a great thing for a new family coming

into Walnut Creek.

You're looking for those places.

And there aren't that many places to build.

You keep people like me that do volunteer work,

that care about the community, and you bring in new families.

What is there not to like about that?

I'm just asking you to really consider the other option.

I've walked up to Seven Hills School.

You ain't going to drive anybody down that road

and through Heather Farms in any kind of time frame.

You have an emergency at 2.30.

It's chock-a-block.

They have to have traffic coordinators down there.

This is the only option for this place.

The county approved it.

They understood our need.

And I'd like to retire here.

I'd like to sell my house to some family

and stay in Walnut Creek.

But if you don't approve this,

I think you're gonna see a lot of good people

that help Walnut Creek leave Walnut Creek.

I'm not sure that's what you wanna do.

Please vote yes.

Thank you.

No cutting.

No, no, no, no, no.

This is, we want everybody to be comfortable

when they have a chance to speak.

Please restrain from audience participation.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Haskiou,

City Council members and city staff.

My name is Diane Crowley Young, and I lived on Tampico.

I still live in Walnut Creek,

but I lived on Tampico for 10 years.

Tampico connects to March Banks and into Kinross.

I'm still there once a week

to visit my 99-year-old former neighbor.

The last time this issue was before the city council,

I was gobsmacked by the many reasons

people are against this project.

Since that meeting, I've made a point of asking some

who are not in favor of this project

exactly what they want.

From those who don't actually understand

where the proposed entrance will be,

which thanks to this presentation, everyone should now,

and why it's the best option,

to the people who live in surrounding planned unit

developments that weren't wanted when they were originally

approved.

To the people who think that if they get what they want,

the area will continue to be undeveloped.

What becomes painfully clear is that they are all fiercely

embracing aspects of nimbyism, plain and simple.

There seems to be a lot of magical thinking

and zealous righteousness at play.

This is not their land, and their lives

be minimally impacted by this project, far less than any other likely alternative.

In my research, I discovered many believe this level of care already exists, but sadly

it does not.

Not in Walnut Creek, not in all of Contra Costa County.

If this project is approved, what will happen is that the 30% of seniors who make up the

population of Walnut Creek and our surrounding neighbors will finally have an option that

allows them to live out their lives with dignity and the services they require

all in one place. Please approve option 1. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Carol

Weed. Good evening. I'm asking the council to please vote no on the sale of

lot A. My concerns are twofold. One is timing and the other is environmental

impacts. The timing which hasn't really been emphasized tonight that I've heard

is that there is a legal suit for the environmental impact report that's before

this the county and so although you have a way legally to proceed because you're

a secondary party I think it would make more sense to start chopping trees down

after the county resolves its legal battles with that.

So I don't see the urgency of starting

to chopping down trees now.

That's the timing question I have.

The other is that, sustainably speaking,

trees may seem like it's just one or two trees,

what's the big deal?

We need to consider that the oak tree

sequesters more carbon than any other species.

The mature oak, the size of these oaks that are in the report, would require about 39

other oak trees to be planted that are at least 30 years or 40 years old, which means

they have a girth of about almost nine inches, and to be growing for 40 years.

So in other words, taking down two protected oaks is a big deal.

It wouldn't seem that.

The other environmental impact concern is the greenhouse gases that are going to be

part of the traffic.

So there's the noise, and there's the interference, and there's the traffic jams.

That's all important.

But the gases from the cars and the air pollution concerns me.

And to dismiss the fact of saying, well, the residential seniors don't go out that much

and there's just going to be two deliveries for food services is very misleading because

seniors aren't going to stay put. They go to places. They have more deliveries by Amazon

and more deliveries by restaurants than other age groups.

Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Terri Ann Sturiale and I had a prepared talk but I've decided that

but I just want to speak from the heart.

I first heard about the continued care retirement

community concept from my brother from the East Coast,

my little brother who's got to live in one.

And when I checked for one around here,

there wasn't anything.

And about a month later, I heard about the Glen.

I was so excited.

I am still excited for Walnut Creek to have an opportunity

to have something like this in your community,

in our community, all the pluses that you gained from it

for the community have been talked about,

so I'm not gonna go there.

I am gonna say that in addition to all of us

that might get to live there,

and I don't even know if I'm gonna be one of those,

our, my daughter wants, is living in Florida

and wants me to move to Florida.

I don't wanna move to Florida.

But she has agreed that if I go into something like the CCRC

where they'll take care of me and make the decisions

what will happen to me when I can no longer do that,

she would agree to, you know, be nice about me staying here.

So you're not only impacting, you know,

the people that might be living in the community,

you're impacting our children and our families.

And they're in this area,

some of the others are still here.

So you're impacting a whole lot of us.

And as far as the traffic,

Most of us probably have the same zip code

as what Ken Ross has.

We're already on Ignacio Valley Road.

I was sitting on it today thinking

there's not gonna be any more impact

because we're all gonna be still

just moving a little bit over further.

So I am just, I'm excited and I'm hoping that you do vote

to sell the property because it's needed

and CCRC is needed in this area

and Walnut Creek has an opportunity

that the other communities don't have right now.

Thank you.

Hi.

Oh, let's see here.

I'm Carol Curtis.

I'm the president of the Heather Farms Homeowners Association.

We have 359 households, about 1,000 residents.

And as a representative,

I am grateful that you're allowing extra time.

I don't expect to take all 10 minutes.

my comments will be geared only to the use of lot A,

not the quality of the project that is not the issue

that is under discussion tonight.

May I have a moment of clarity here?

Sure.

There were other people that lived

in your Homeowners Association

and you're speaking for the entire Homeowners Association?

I am the president of the board of directors.

I got that, I guess.

but that doesn't mean you're speaking for everybody.

God knows I don't speak for everybody in Walnut Creek.

Okay, so are you saying that as in that context

I'm not entitled to additional time

because I appreciate that.

I don't want to take time, I'm not entitled to.

And I appreciate your cooperation.

I need to be assured that we are not going to be lined up

with people who are...

Saying the same thing over and over again.

No, that happens all the time.

But this is designed to be efficient for one person

to deliver a message for lots of people.

So if you're doing this simply because you're co-president

and a person that has two minutes of discussion,

that's great.

If you're representing a lot of people

and they'll raise their hand and promise

not to get up and speak, you can have the full 10 minutes.

If there are other people from our community, they will speak what they think, and some

of them already have.

I am speaking officially for the board of directors.

I don't know if that qualifies in your book.

That does not qualify.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Well...

So you've got two minutes and we'll start it all over again.

If we start the two minutes over again, I would appreciate that because you all have

seen pages and pages of stuff that we've submitted and I wouldn't want to belabor that anyway.

To those of you who are commenting that you want to live here in this development, I want

to assure you there really is a viable alternative even though the developer would have you believe

that there isn't, the developer owns or his subsidiaries own properties on both sides

of Seven Hills Ranch Road in part that would need to be developed anyway, they will undoubtedly

be developed, these properties will undoubtedly be developed and then that road will have

to be improved anyway. So why not improve it now? There is no good reason not to, in

my opinion. We talked about traffic studies and one of the problems is that in our tolling

agreement with the developer, he acknowledged that there would be, that they might be able

to limit their deliveries to ten a day and that some of them would be in semi-trucks.

Now he tells you two a week with small trucks. So I'm not really sure which is true. The

has also told you that he has had constant contact with the surrounding community. I

presume that he means us. He continues to confuse us with Save Seven Hills Ranch. We

are not the same organization. His contact with the community solely existed of one meeting

in our clubhouse with me, who was a director at the time and the former president. And

we had a candid conversation. That is true. But that is his sole contact with the community

at any point in this time, and at that time I believe the development was already decided.

The plans were already decided.

With the purchase of, oh, and by the way, I have to congratulate you on negotiating

a $5 million deal for 50 square feet.

I mean, you know, $1,000 a square foot is great, so good on you.

We see that the that that lot a deal was hammered out behind closed doors as it should have been

So I'm I apologize no community benefit is my issue. Thank you

Hi, I'm Karen Perkins. I'm a resident and I live in a senior community and I don't think this

Walnut Creek needs another senior community. I don't even think Walnut Creek should be developing and growing as it is

Part of the reason people want to come to Walnut Creek is because of the beautiful natural areas around here

and I just went to a holiday party in the Homestead area and I got lost and I was amazed about

How much rural area that has how many beautiful hills and how many beautiful streams?

And also somebody leaned on the light. I would like that the light back on thank you

And I'd certainly I'm opposed of the sale of lot a before as the homeowners

Heather Farms Park Homeowners Association rather has already

mentioned before lawsuits are settled and water boards giving results I think

it would be really not very wise to have it a sale before you know the the

ultimate what's going to be happening here and also I just think that if you

care about sustainability.

You hired a sustainable action plan person.

Growth is going to have to stop.

Most of the people in this room are from all in the creek

who want to live in this community.

But from that map, the planet up there, there's thousands

and thousands of people who want to move here.

And even someone I was talking to here who wants to move

there wasn't from the state.

They were from another state in Northern California.

Now they've spent most of their life away.

And now they want to move back because their retirement age.

It's whether it's money versus the quality of life

of the residents who really lived here all the time.

That's what it seems to be, at least from your end of it.

But I think it's really, really a mistake

if you approve the sale of this lot.

And I really hope this whole development doesn't get built

because of all the things people have said.

Certainly Amazon trucks go into this development.

Certainly people in who are over 70 drive and have visitors come in

it would be nice that every single community had a

Continuing care place like like Baraga ages. Thank you very much that they don't think we got the point. I appreciate it

I like that dimming of the lights. That's a new way to curtail public comment

Well, good evening, thank you for permitting the opportunity to make some comments tonight, I'll keep them very brief

And thank you for your service to your city. It's very valuable

I'm a resident of Moraga now for 39 years a planning commissioner for six years and a town council member for 12

Three years as mayor. I know well what you are facing. I

Also appreciate that you probably don't care for outsiders coming to your city to tell you what to do

Been there done that

I've served with many of you on various boards and commissions in this in this in the county that we are friends

Over the years my wife Sharon over there, and I have come to know and appreciate Walnut Creek

We shop here dying here enjoy shows at the leisure our cities are at neighbors, and we come here frequently with great pleasure

So it was wonderful to learn that the Glen at Heather Farms is being planned

At our age Sharon and I realized we can't age in place in our lovely home in Moraga

We must downsize and do it soon

But we don't want to move away from all our long-term friends in La Mirinda

We certainly don't want to leave Contra Costa County our home for so long

So we're as a depositors at the Glenna. We're looking forward to being able to live in this wonderfully conceived

community for seniors I

Can understand the concern of neighbors in the proposed community?

Traffic is always an issue. We have those same concerns in Maraga and we have many citizens who are quite aggressive resisting any

prospects of disruption in their lives. They could teach you people in Walnut Creek a few things about how to be disruptive.

But I also understand that such environmental risks must be taken with perspective.

Traffic flows from any development must be understood for what they reasonably will be, not for what they are imagined to be.

In this instance, it's clear to me

That what trap will traffic will be generated by the Glen will hardly impact the neighborhood and Ken Ross south of March backs

Given that the Glen is a senior community

It's clear that the traffic to and from the community will be far less than a subdivision of single-family home. I'm sorry

So I would urge you to approve the sale of lot a thank you for concluding and sir

Can you state your name for the record? I didn't have the pleasure of serving with you

Michael Metcalfe

Nice to meet you. I am Leslie hunt and you need to move your mic

Thank you, Leslie

I'm speaking for Friends of the Creeks tonight

There is nobody else who will speak from my organization

One of you I've forgotten whether it was councilmember Silva or Darling or just who but you asked a question about the

Trail that the developer offered to the county

If you look in your records at a set of maps that you received from Chuck Clancy

You will find one that indicates that the land above that trail is so steep that it could fall apart at any moment

It's not the place for a trail

It's not much of a gift and that has been true of a lot of other things that have happened about this development

But, having said that, so that you will know, I'd like to move to what I really wanted to

say to you tonight.

The Kimros Wetland is considered a water of the state.

Waters of the state are much more broadly defined than federal waters.

The mitigations in waters of the state, as Ms. Deldy pointed out, I believe, nevertheless

follow a certain prescription, and you have to do it right.

You have to meet the standards of the state regulators.

Some of the state water regulators are not happy with the situation, and it's not clear

what will go on in the end.

They wrote a pretty stern letter, which I have a copy of for you here, back in the middle

of September, indicating that the application was incomplete.

It had serious problems, seven pages' worth of single-spaced typed problems.

So I think that issue may not be settled yet.

This was also brought up at the time of the DEIR by James Martin, and those letters are

in the record.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service in October

proposed that the Western pond turtles be listed

as a threatened species.

That suggests that a study needs to be done

to see how many are around.

There is a picture in the record of one

in front of the main building of this development.

They have been seen at the natural area in Heather Farm

park nearby, they are likely to be around and a factor, so sorry I'm looking for my

place here. So while on-site mitigation is preferred, I want to mention to you

all that there are a number of potential mitigation sites in the city of Walnut

Creek and other places where, if there isn't one on site that meets qualifications, there

are others. We have a little list. And we can provide you with some alternatives. And

we'll be happy to do so. The thing that bothers me most of all about this is that I worry

that your decision, if you make it tonight, is premature. I would like to urge you to

wait until all these issues have been resolved. There's no reason not to that I can see. I

have not seen any indication that there is. And you can do the same deal in two or three

months or from now or whatever it takes to be sure that you've taken care of the things

that a lot of your citizens have come and told you again and again that they want. Thank

you.

Good evening. My name is Steve Curtis. I'm a resident of Walla Creek and I'm also an

an architect and a real estate broker.

And I'm losing my voice before I even start.

The arguments put forth this evening

fail to consider an important element.

Seven Hills Ranch Road and Walden out to Civic

will still be widened and developed,

regardless of whether the glen is

accessed from these roads or not.

Speaker already owns the two remaining large parcels

in the area, which are also the only major choke

points on the right of way.

In addition to that, these trees mentioned in the staff report

are, for the most part, eucalyptus trees

and are slated for removal anyway, as to the traffic

on Kinross Drive, if it goes through.

My major concern is the construction traffic,

not the vehicular traffic from the homeowners that

into the development. There will be 5,000 full loads of dirt removed from that

project. It will take a year. That's 40 round trips a day for five days a week

for a year, some passing within 10 to 15 feet of existing homes. That is not a

reasonable thing to expect homeowners to do. At the very least, the project needs

to be adjusted, which I don't believe will require going back to the county for further

approvals to create a zero balance between cut and fill and eliminate the 75,000 cubic

yards of dirt being removed from the property.

The other last thing I want to say

is regarding the right of way down to, nevermind.

Thank you.

Next speaker please.

Hi, my name's Taylor Delkey.

I'm a long time resident of Walnut Creek.

I grew up here.

I'm currently a property owner of Walnut Creek.

I live not too far away from the proposed project.

Usually I'm in support of infill projects such as this,

but tonight I'm here.

I'm not, there's a lot of different concerns I have

about this project but kind of a zoomed out big level,

this project does not address the biggest need

that we have in this city,

which is the lack of market rate and affordable housing

on the open market to anybody can live it.

This is institutional housing

that focuses on a very specific demographic.

I can't live there, a lot of people who live

in Walnut Creek cannot live there.

And no disrespect to the generations that precede me

but the people who probably are in my age cohort,

they're not here tonight because if they're like me

and they bought their house recently,

they probably have a mortgage that's around $10,000.

They have sick kids at home, they got to go see.

And if they're like me, they drive to Palo Alto

to go to work to pay for all that

because housing's expensive and they're feeling that pinch.

And this project does not address the elephant

in our proverbial room here.

And I know that the context of this,

this meeting here is about Lot A, there's specific things,

but I mean, as you can see, it's kind of a proxy battle

for the project at large, right?

Let's just be honest with ourselves.

And if that's the case, so be it.

I'll get up here and I'll say,

I oppose the sale of Lot A.

I think there's a bad deal.

I think there's the wrong project here.

I think that, as other people have said,

there is, the people at a county level

may not have been representing the interests of the people

like me who live close by,

and I would ask the city to oppose this,

no on option one.

I don't think this is a good deal for us.

Thank you.

Can I ask you a question?

Come back, please.

I truly appreciate your passion for housing,

both market rate and affordable.

So in lieu of this project,

you'd be okay if this were a dense townhome project?

I think that considering the costs of a loss

of about 30 acres in open space,

that the general population of Walnut Creek

should be getting the benefit of having the option

to buy a property there.

So it's somewhat, yes, yeah.

I think that a different project looks better here

than what is being proposed.

So it would have, nevermind, thank you.

Good evening, City Council.

My name is Marsha McLean, I live in Walnut Creek.

I would like you to vote no.

My main reason is that you don't know what the permits are going to be in terms of whether

it's the creeks or anything else like that.

That's very, very concerning because you could go ahead and say this is great and then they

won't do that.

I mean, I know, for example, in Rossmore we have a little creek and we wanted to do something

and they said you can't because you've got the fish and game, you've got this, you've

We've got five or six different public entities

who will make a decision, so other than taking that,

I agree with what most people,

it's nothing to do with the project.

It really has to do with the land itself.

Thank you very much.

Good evening, Jan Warren.

You're almost through with the line.

It's the holiday season.

This is a rotten time to be having these conversation.

We can't come in on Zoom.

We have to come down here and some people can't

because they have parties to go to.

I can't think of another item before the city council that has been presented and voted

on at the same night all the years that I've been coming down here.

It's a lousy process and I realize there's legalities and so forth, but for two years

we've been coming down here, y'all have been negotiating behind closed doors and there

the twains shall meet.

And so we come down here and hear everything at once, it's very difficult for all of us.

We had no input on your negotiation.

So you have some public benefits, some cash for a lot A, some community benefits, some

of it to help with traffic.

I don't think it's going to cover everything or solve our problems.

Lesher Center, I'm not sure whose favorite that is, but we didn't get any housing in

here.

Certainly not affordable.

And I'm not sure on our priority list what we have gotten.

I wanna address the first speaker, Carolyn Love,

who talked about buying into the neighborhood

and the fact that she was told and she perceived.

And I think there's been a lot of difficulty, as you know,

with the amendments on this lot

and what we can and couldn't do.

But when the Almond Shoey people came down here

because someone wanted to develop

and they didn't like what was conceived,

everybody, you know, the council backed off.

And because people had the perception whether me included

that you couldn't, you know, actually,

that there was a promise to the people.

That was the perception.

And so it's kind of late.

Vote no on option three.

Thank you, Jim.

Before we start, I have a quick question

for either city manager or city attorney

in relation to Mrs. Warren's question.

In terms of real estate property or sales

that the city sells,

is that ever conducted in open session

when it comes to negotiating a sale?

It is generally not done that way.

The actual contract, when it's finalized,

does come to the council in open session, but the-

The approval by the council at that point.

The approval and the action, yeah.

the negotiations are conducted in closed session

with the council providing direction to your negotiators

and then your staff putting together an agreement

if the parties can reach a tentative understanding.

And is there often or always public comment

prior to closed session when that occurs?

There is.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you for your patience.

Certainly.

Good evening, City Council members and neighbors.

I'm a long time resident of Walnut Creek, 50 plus years.

35 of those years has been on March Bank's drive.

100 yards or so from the intersection with Kenross.

The staff, I thought, did a great job

in kind of compiling the issues

and the relevance of what you're to decide tonight,

which is selling la de.

The county has already approved the project.

There's not really any debate about that.

This is really just that access which seems clear to me

in terms of what the best way in and out is gonna be.

So keeping it brief, please you, oh yes.

I think that's the right decision.

Thank you.

Oh, people would like to know who you are, sir.

Oh, Neil Johanison.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Rosemary Nishikawa.

I live in Heather Farms, HOA.

And my property, my home, is six feet from the fence line.

I have big concerns about how it's

going to affect the foundation and everything else.

And I'm concerned that the city is not really

wanting to stick to the general plan that's

been in place for a long, long time.

This is basically a commercial entity with a planned movie

theater, restaurants, bars, nail salons, a hospital.

And it's just not, it's a beautiful plan.

I mean, I'm not against this beautiful plan,

but I don't think this is the right place for it

because it's a commercial piece of property.

And I'm concerned about the traffic.

I'm a senior.

I run around a lot in my car, and I order from Amazon

on a regular basis.

So also I think that the traffic is going to be quite bad.

And honestly, just going on Ignacio Valley Boulevard

East and getting into the left-hand lane,

there's only a space for about 10 vehicles.

and considering all the trucks and delivery trucks

and everything else that's gonna be traveling

on Ignacio Valley Boulevard,

making that left-hand turn.

There's not enough space that's gonna push vehicles

out into the fast lane on Ignacio Valley Boulevard.

And I don't think, I've never heard anybody

addressing this situation,

and I don't think it's gonna be a safe situation.

But anyway, I ask that you vote no,

and thank you for hearing me.

Thank you.

My name is Paul Banta, and I'm a Walnut Creek resident,

and just, I appreciate all the intelligent comments tonight.

I think the project, like the lady just said,

looks like a beautiful project,

and I'm very much in favor of people having

a nice place to live, especially in their senior years.

I guess I just have a couple questions,

and maybe the people from Speaker can answer that.

One of the main issues tonight is access,

And it seems like if speaker had chosen a really appropriate

site for this project, then we wouldn't be talking about how

to get people in and out of this development.

So why did speaker choose a location with such poor access?

If you look at the options, there

have been three that have been offered,

and they all have big problems.

So that was just a question I throw out there for people

consider. The other one is there was a statement made earlier about there's an

expectation that all traffic will avoid residential Kenross. Well, I've heard

people before say during other projects they saw construction trucks driving

down Kenross and I don't know of any way during construction, especially even

afterwards, how you can prevent people from using residential Kenross as a short

or just during heavy traffic, just a way to get to the project unless there is

some type of restricted access and I don't know if the city is prepared to do

that. From my understanding they never have been so that's another question I

throw out there and at this time I think there's a lot of unanswered questions so

I would echo previous comments that I would vote or ask you to vote no at this

time on the sale of Ladee till all the issues are really worked out. And that's it. Thank you.

Thank you. Somebody actually has stepped up. This is your last chance. It's last call for,

if you intend to speak, get in line right now because I'm going to close it after this speaker.

You get to go. Okay. I'm going to read something here if it doesn't disappear on me. So this is

from our attorney says while you have seen numerous support comments from

people from various cities who want to retire at the Glen those comments have

nothing to do with the issues before you today. Number one do you do your

approvals comply with CEQA's mandates to inform disclose mitigate be accountable

for this, for any project impact.

Two, is there true infeasibility to not use Kinross Drive?

And three, are your approvals consistent

with the Water Code?

Four, are your approvals consistent

with the City General Plan

and all applicable goals and policies?

And five, are your approvals consistent

with the Subdivision Map Act and other state laws?

The answer to all these questions is no,

that people want to retire in the Glen at Heather Farms

is not the issue.

Well, the rest of it disappeared, so I would urge you to...

Well you're tired, oh no, you have 51 seconds.

I would urge you to vote no.

Okay, got it.

And your name, sir, please?

Karl Lofthaus.

Thank you.

And I'm a 30 year resident of Walnut Creek and a voter.

Thank you for coming tonight.

And that was the message from the attorney.

Good, good evening.

My name is David Price and speaking about messages from the attorney, I'm an attorney

for the speaker, uh, organization.

Just really quick, um, one, hopefully you received and got a chance to look at my letter

dated yesterday.

I mean the bottom line is there is not one legal impediment to making a decision to adopt

option 1 this evening. I just wanted to briefly respond to the fact that one of the other

attorneys made a comment that basically these issues have been exhausted. I think that's

a pretty accurate statement for where we are. I think they have been exhausted. I think

with the input from your staff and city attorney, it's clear that everything's been following

the book and verse from a legal point of view. There was also a reference to some subdivision

issues. They do not control in this instance. This was not an offer of dedication for access

to the bank of a stream or a river, which is the exception that the first attorney made

a reference to. And in fact, there was also a reference to the 2004 Kin Ross Terrace subdivision

that had some marks on it about saving areas. Those were within that subdivision. They were

not within the Ken Ross right of way or lot a and just wanted to clarify that

for the record thank you very much thank you all right no no that was mayor

if I may.

Yes, sir.

May I do, please?

Yeah.

The council, I think the attorney who just spoke was speaking as within the two-minute

limit and not as part of the rebuttals.

Okay.

And so if the council is done receiving comments from the public at this point, assuming there

are no further comments, then it would be appropriate for the council to entertain the

rebuttals from first the homeowner association attorney and then and then

the representative speaker thank you that's that's why we have somebody to

help us newbies so we have the rebuttal from applicant number two which is you

and you now have five minutes so there's also not one legal obligation for you

all to vote yes tonight. You don't have to vote yes tonight. You're not required

to ever vote yes on this project if you don't want to. And when I came in I was

struck by the pictures on the wall of what it looks like about a hundred,

120 years ago, I don't know. But what Walnut Creek looks like today is the

function of lots of individual land use decisions since that time. And what

Walnut Creek will look like in the future is a function of land use

decisions that you make today and those land use decisions by operation of state law and by

the trust you've put in your own staff and consultants are directed by the general plan,

which you should reference. So the first thing is that the general plan in this case, again,

contemplates a dense downtown and then not an LA style development with with dense commercial

areas interspersed throughout especially not gated dense commercial areas interspersed

throughout. That just isn't going to create functional traffic patterns for cars,

pedestrians or bicycles particularly since this abuts a major open space area of Heather Farms.

So please do consider that seriously

and what the pictures on the wall will look like

a hundred years from now.

With regard to the wetlands,

I have letters here from very recently

from the both the Regional Water Quality Board

and the Corps of Engineers.

And both of them cast doubt upon whether the proposal

as we've seen tonight will actually be the final proposal.

So I would urge you to either reject or continue

your decision on whether to allow trees to be cut

and the right of way to be taken

and lot A to be purchased until you know

if this project is going to look like

what it looks like in the drawing.

Specifically, what the water board has stated

is that there has been an inadequate demonstration

of impact avoidance and minimization with the entrance area.

So that pertains directly to this decision before you today.

Then with regard to the government code section

I cited before, I wanna read to you what it actually says

since that was addressed by the developer's attorney.

It doesn't say road right-of-way dedication

accessing a water.

What it says is the case of a subdivision,

In the case of a subdivision fronting

upon any public waterway,

the offer of dedication of a public access route

or routes from public highways

to the banks of the waterway shall be accepted

within three years after the approval of the final map.

And then subdivision D,

offers which are not accepted within the time limit

specified in B shall be abandoned.

So there's a question right now, I think,

as to whether or not you actually can take this right-of-way

that I think council should address in a report

to this council, city attorney should address for you

before you make a decision here.

With regard to general plan,

there has to be some finding of consistency

by this council before you can make a decision.

So it can't just be based upon nothing

and the resolution before you and the record

doesn't address consistency of the proposed project

with your general plan.

It just says that the residential zoning

on the two sides immediately of the lot A

are both residential.

But that doesn't recognize

that there's a whole project attached to that.

It's not just a transfer of a right of way

with no project in isolation.

That's not the situation.

So with that, I would urge you to reject the proposal

to accept the right-of-way dedication,

reject the staff's proposal to purchase lot A

and the alternative to continue any decision

until you have a decision

on the 401-404 wetlands issues.

Thank you, are there any follow-up questions?

So, I'm curious. My experience with CEQA is it's good at helping people understand the impacts of a project and that when somebody pursues CEQA litigation,

there's only a limited number of remedies that they can have, most of which involve recirculating the document.

And it's usually done because there's something that people want out of the project.

Have you guys sat down within, have your, has your clients sat down and figured out what it is they want other than no project?

So here's where I'm at a bit of a handicap because I'm not handling that

litigation. Okay. Because I'm here for Mr. Tsai instead. So I apologize that I

I can't answer that but I will say with regard to CEQA that I that is true to

some extent but then it also requires mitigation. In this case, mitigation has

largely been deferred with regard to wetlands for example to the agencies

and the agency hasn't made a final decision yet. So I know that that is an

issue that is of concern and one that remains unresolved by design of how the CEQA was left

out.

CEQA determination was left out.

Thank you.

I'm not seeing any more questions from council, so thank you very much for your.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

And now would be the rebuttal for the applicant appellant.

Thank you.

I don't know that this is a rebuttal.

I just wanted to probably comment a couple of things of statements that were made or

or questions that were asked,

that'd probably be appropriate to comment

and going back from the beginning of the meeting.

There was a comment made about some creative engineering

around the drainage that would get engineers excited

and we're excited that the engineers are excited.

I just wanna make sure for the record to understand

that that creative engineering was actually covered

in the CEQA as well, that there was a standard option,

an option that Walnut Creek proposed

as part of their comments

and we made sure that the county looked at both.

So that was covered, that's not something new

since the project was put together.

I also want to make clear that the several people

have referenced that the city did a great job

negotiating a deal on 50 square feet.

If the numbers that we're looking at today

were all considered a purchase price or something else,

then we are probably somewhere in the $4 billion

an acre range or something like that,

I'm not sure what things calc out to.

But I wanna make clear that those are not

CEQA mitigation payments.

We're not giving the city money for leisure

because we think we're gonna use a lot of seats.

And in similar way, we're trying to partner with the city

on some things that are important to the city,

but I want to make clear that those are not mitigation

payments for impacts that were anticipated

as part of the environmental analysis.

A comment was made that there was some discussion

about is this residential or is this commercial?

And that's probably a fair confusion.

It's referred to as institutional.

And earlier, before the county representative left,

he used a technical term that some of you

the cities and staff might know, but it's referred to as a residential care

facility for the elderly. And it's true that RCFEs don't pay fees the same way

residential units do for parks and libraries and different things like that

because residents and residential care facilities for the elderly don't send

their children to school. Their kids don't play soccer at the parks, but in

part that's also true particularly in development like this because we're

building amenities into the community that our residents will use. The pool

will be different than the pool at Heather Farm Park. It will be age-appropriate. It's

designed for water, roadblocks, and lapsing in a way that's different than competitive

aquatics in Heather Farm Park. We'll have other amenities and private libraries and

things that people can use. It's a different level of impact for a different type of institutional

use. And then there was one more thing. I guess this is probably related to that. I

really thought, and I'm not sure if he's still here, but the gentleman who spoke with some

real vigor around the market rate housing. But I hope it's not lost on the council that

When you're looking at these future residents of this community, I love that they reference

the fact that they live here and that when they leave their homes, whether that's a modest

town home or a larger home, that home becomes available for exactly the families that that

young man was describing right here in Walnut Creek.

It effectively does provide housing for all sorts, all different places on the economic

ladder.

And then one last correction, because I think a comment was made that was incorrect, was

that there was a reference made that the private properties that create the

pinch point that make Seven Hills Ranch Road an infeasible exit entry for the

property someone made a comment that the private property owner that creates that

pinch point is speaker and that is absolutely not true those are two

private homeowners further south of where speaker owns the property I guess

do I stay here for questions mayor you can I'm gonna check and see if there

Yes, go ahead, Matt.

So I appreciate you responding.

Speaker does own property, though,

on either side of seven health agreements, right?

If you put my presentation back up,

I can show you where it is,

and I think it'll make a lot of sense.

Who controls that?

Not me.

We all know where our limits are.

If you open up our, okay, that's good.

So if I can just, if I think,

if I go back up to that water, okay.

So we can't see.

You can't see my marker,

but when I describe it, it's going to be so.

You can see it up there, but we can't see it

in front of us.

Now you can see the.

Thank you.

Let me, I'm gonna stretch the microphone over.

Do you see where this red line gets really skinny here

and it goes almost to zero?

In between these houses here,

there's your private property problem.

That is where you can't find 50 feet

to put a roadway through, okay?

Speaker owns, in addition to all of this property here,

which is the project site in the county,

Speaker also owns this right here.

Okay, but that's not where the pinch point is.

as you can see the pinch points down here.

Yeah, what's the property then that you do own

that's not part of the project?

That's right here.

And that's just remnant land

or what's the proposal for that land?

There is no proposal to use that land.

And that's in the county as well?

No, it's in the city.

Okay.

How big is that?

Parselage.

Now you're gonna get me in trouble.

I literally, it's literally just has not been a part

of any of our plans, but do you want me off the top

of my head?

I'd say about 1.75 acres.

I'm not gonna refute that, that's probably right.

Well, hold on, nope, I get to ask the questions now.

So sir, excuse me, public comment is closed.

So what was the purpose of acquiring that property?

Or why is that?

So that was sold as a bundle with the project site

by the Hale family, they owned it.

No plans to develop that at all?

you did you'd have to come back to the city and get approvals for that. That's exactly right so

what you just said I want to repeat if we ever planned to do anything on that property we would

have to come back to the city not the county the city because that's in the city not Contra Costa

County well I guess it's in Contra Costa County too but it's expressly in the city limits. And

while we have the power point up you showed one slide that had the buffers between the backyards

from the neighbors that are immediately adjacent to the entry point. So I thought that was worth

reiterating yeah so so and i there's a couple of comments that i thought tonight were made that

i'm sensitive to them it's going to be real but you can see that like if somebody here owns this

townhome and someone mentioned i'm only six feet from the property line that's true but that's the

home that they purchased and that's how those lots were sized but you can see where's the closest

building on my side of the property line to her home what's that buffer generally in that area

this, this is just landscape. They're massive setbacks.

And then in terms of the property, kind of the property is immediately adjacent to Ken Ross.

What would your response be to how you're doing the same type of thing to provide some sort of

buffering? Yeah, well, in this area, I think the original developer of this community actually did

a nice job. As you can see, they provided a very large buffer here. That's homeowners association

property right so these guys actually have a very good buffer I can

appreciate that they would rather have nothing here just like a lot of people

would rather have nothing on the entire property but but that actually it

provides a really nice buffer already for them to can us what about on the

other side of with club you this right here there's one home right here and I

frankly think if I just now I'm gonna be honest I think that his views are gonna

be impacted and it's gonna be a lot different from when he purchased his

home I've spoken to that homeowner several times you know something

Somebody said something in the very first public comment.

She said, and you have to empathize with this.

She said, when I bought my home, I was guaranteed dot dot dot.

And I think that a lot of people who we all

go through that process, we buy our home,

are real to represent something, a neighbor tells us something,

and we latch onto that.

And that was part of our value proposition

when we decided to buy the home.

But it wasn't true.

And I can feel in the room that's

like there wants some equity that says,

hold that and if something else happens then I'm let down but it certainly wasn't

speaker that told them that and it doesn't make it true. There wasn't a

guarantee that the Ken Ross Drive that the city put right up to the boundary

this property was somehow never going to be used to access it.

I think a few more questions and deliveries kind of getting conflicting

information I know you don't have any control over Amazon trucks we don't

frankly either but in terms of commercial traffic can you provide a

a really good solid response answer to what what is your experience in other

facilities and I know this is smaller than those facilities and it's not just

the food deliveries right because it's got kind of a hospital component almost

kind of level care to it as well that you're getting deliveries of supplies I

imagine yes yes and no and so I want to speak really clearly to this so first of

all I do get to control Amazon more than you Amazon delivers to my clubhouse not

throughout the entire stuff. And then I can put we put these delivery like maybe you guys have

seen these these big like Amazon walls and then we can notify you it's there so they come as that

opposed to driving all around the place they make that one delivery and then you can get it.

The I spoke with our director of operations overseas this entire state of California.

Where are our large trucks? Well Troy that's Cisco food delivery. That's the only one that

you really consider like a commercial type vehicle. That's Cisco food delivery. How often

when they come into the community, twice a week.

Now, commercial laundry.

That's a Medicare license-skilled nursing facility.

We do it on site.

We deliver our commercial laundry and golf carts

because the commercial laundry is on site.

So it's not that we're...

I think there's a little bit of a...

People want to label it as commercial

and they want to see it as a base of restaurants

or a bunch of movie theaters

with the one big misunderstanding

that everybody's walking to everything, and once you understand that, that they're moving

to this community, the movie theater's not open to anybody who doesn't live in the community.

This is me and my grandkids who come to go to the movies with me. The restaurants aren't

open for anybody in Walnut Creek who wants to drive over here and have dinner and a movie

out. These are for people who are walking to the restaurant after walking to the movies,

after walking earlier in the day to the swimming pool, and I think when you kind of understand

that, that this whole idea is supposed to be a self-contained community, then you start

to understand why these traffic numbers

are so ridiculously low.

And I'm not sure if you're the correct person

for this Mr. Bourne or someone else on your team,

but the regional board comment letter,

who can respond to that?

I can respond to that directly.

So there is, you know, I said earlier in my comments,

we don't have all of our permits and approvals

to do all of this stuff, okay?

And you can appreciate that some of this

is a little bit like who goes first, right?

Like we want to talk about removing trees

and they're saying, well, do you guys control the property?

well, we'll know tomorrow.

And then you go to Walnut Creek and says,

well, we'll make that decision after we know

what you're doing with the trees.

And the Water Quality Control Board goes,

but do you control the property?

And Walnut Creek says, but what are you doing

with the waterway?

And it kind of goes back and forth,

but these are riparian trees.

Like without a 401 permit, they're not coming out anyway.

Okay, so it's not that someone's gonna rush out

and take down a bunch of trees and then say,

well, maybe we'll never get the permits.

There's a lot of permits that have to happen here.

They're all conditions of approval.

If those permits aren't achieved, there is no project.

And then you guys get all your payments, I guess, in 10 years,

as opposed to us being able to enjoy any benefit.

Well, you could remove the trees if they're separate and apart

from any riparian areas that you need regional board approval.

My understanding is that all 10 trees in the right-of-way

are considered riparian and are part of our application

for the 401 permit.

Does that include the two in the?

So it's all connected.

No trees removed until you get regional board approval?

Correct.

In fact, I don't mind you conditioning me tonight

to ensure that that's the case, even if I'm comfortable with

that we're not trying to get ahead of the process and get a shortcut here so

actually can I build on that question yeah what I heard you say is the

regional water quality board wants to know that you have control of the

property what is control of the property is sorry I should I shouldn't put things

into their head I just think when you look at kind of how this all works you

can imagine a scenario we've got a very complicated project it's in the county

Okay, it's accessed through the city.

Who goes first?

The city provides access or the county approves a project?

Well, the county approved the project.

Well, that's what happened,

but you could see the both kind of were like,

you go first, okay?

A lot of these permits,

they're contingent on other things that are happening.

We're not trying to short circuit the system.

We're gonna have to get every single permit

that's required to build this project.

That's, period.

Before you take down the two trees.

Okay.

No mayor, no, we won't wait for our certificate

of occupancy before we take down the trees,

but we're comfortable waiting to get the 401 permit

before we take down the trees, yes.

So that would allow us to ensure

that the water quality board doesn't say move it 10 feet.

Correct, and I know you guys know this,

but the public might not know.

You get an incomplete letter

when you apply for almost anything, right?

That's kind of part of the process.

We applied to the County for the whole project

and the project said, this is a great, thanks.

We also want to see this, this, this, this, this, and this.

Okay, and then we apply again.

So an incomplete letter is by no means their way of saying,

we don't like what you're doing, it's saying, that's great.

We're gonna continue to evaluate this

in order for us to make a good decision.

Please provide all of this additional information,

which we're in the process of doing now.

That's our land use friend.

So, okay.

I am the-

Is that helpful?

I've had clients that have been the recipient

of many in completing this letter.

So I think that-

We used to call them the woefully inadequate.

None of them were my fault.

And that was my staff sending him, so.

I think that's all I had.

Thank you.

Okay.

Are there any more questions?

Yes, I wanna go back to the Seven Hills Ranch Road

and the properties that you own.

So you own that 1.75 acres.

Again, I was teasing a little bit.

I can't confirm that that's the volume.

It looks a little bigger than that,

but it might be a volume.

I always thought it was about one acre,

but it's that piece where there's a sign

it says no parking here at the north end of Homestead.

I'm not sure it actually touches the road, to be honest,

but honestly, I really just don't know a lot

about that property, it is not part of this application,

and I wanna be careful not to try to,

the more we speak about this property,

I think people just can get confused

about how it's incorporated into this project,

and I wanna say once more for the record,

it is not a part of this project, period, hard stop.

There's no pending application, no thoughtful application,

doesn't relate to this project,

it's in the city, not the county.

So I'm kind of, I'm speculating here

when you guys ask me kind of what to do,

or I just don't even have the stats on it.

It came with the purchase, that's all I can say.

So there was one other comment that stood out to me,

which was the contention that this project

would be forced to widen Seven Hills Ranch Road

and Walnut Boulevard no matter what.

No, I think, and that was part of the same comment

that said that we were the pinch point,

that we were kind of artificially creating it

and that we were gonna widen it.

But you can see from this,

This is probably the clearest graphic I've seen

in any of the exhibits associated with the project,

where it shows where the pinch point is

and that the pinch point is south of the property we own.

We don't control that and we have no interest.

That is not part of anything we're talking about

saying hey, let's have that property have access here,

there or the other.

I think council member Francois said it perfectly.

If we do anything there, guess what?

We have totally different application,

we'll come in here and we'll say hey,

we're thinking about this, what do you guys think?

And we'll have to deal with that from scratch.

So you think the comment is related to this other property

as opposed to actually this project triggering.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

So wait a second, one more.

I just want to double check and make sure

because this is one of those issues

I wanted to make sure I understand.

So you're saying that you are comfortable

with tree removal being contingent

on you showing regional water quality control board

401 certification?

Yes, I am.

Okay, thank you.

I'm gonna look away again.

Anybody have any more questions?

First staff, okay.

I know, I don't, but does anybody need a break?

Nope, okay.

All right.

Mayor, if I may, the council may wish

to close the public hearing.

You can ask questions of staff afterwards

if you wish to do that.

Okay, that was my instruction

to close the public hearing.

And I noticed that that's the order on my piece of paper

about how it's all supposed to happen.

So yes, okay, we are done with the public hearing.

You are welcome to stay as long as you would like.

This is an open meeting,

but you're done with the chance to talk.

Now, did you wanna ask the staff some questions?

I did, I wanted to go back to

this public waterway subdivision map.

You're our city attorney,

you're an experienced land use attorney.

Can you comment on that?

I can and I'm happy to comment on a number of the issues

that came up in the appeal if the council would like me to.

That would be really helpful.

Yeah, I would note that the council

also received a letter from Mr. Tsai

that came in just before the meeting.

I don't know if any of the council members

have had a chance to see it or not,

but it was referenced by their other attorney

that was here this evening.

And so I'll address a number of issues

that have come up both in that letter

as well as the comments

from the homeowner association's attorney.

The first one is the Subdivision Map Act question.

And the argument is that the city might not actually

have the irrevocable offer of dedication available to it

because there's a contention

that that irrevocable offer has expired

by virtue of provisions under the Subdivision Map Act.

The actual operative provision

under the Subdivision Map Act is 66477.2A,

which is what we were citing.

That is the one that relates to roadway easements.

The section that is cited both in the letter

and by council here this evening

is actually 664,772B,

and there's a real fundamental difference in that section.

It relates to public access from a roadway to a waterway.

And so for the reasons that in part were stated

by counsel for speaker,

as well as the actual statutory language itself,

the town, the city does have the ability

to accept that irrevocable offer of dedication

because you're doing it under subsection A,

which applies specifically to roads and things like that

as distinguished from a public access.

So think a path from a highway to the beach

or something like that.

That is also consistent with other parts of that subsection

which provide that this time limit that exists

for those other types of easements

is in a separate subsection of the statute

that doesn't relate to the easements of roadway form,

roadway easement form.

But what does relate to roadway easements

is how you terminate those offers of dedication.

And there is a process that the council may recall

that every once in a while the city

decides that it doesn't need a street anymore.

So it goes through a street vacation process.

The subdivision map act very clearly says

that even for an irrevocable offer of dedication,

If a city wanted to give up the right to that,

they would actually have to go

through a street vacation process,

which Walnut Creek has never done in the 50 years

that we've had the right to do this.

And so for those reasons,

we believe that the city does have the ability

to accept the irrevocable offer of dedication.

The second issue that was brought up,

it relates to the subdivision issue,

and this is cited in the letter,

but wasn't included in the additional public comments.

There's also a provision that says that the dedication

has to have some benefit to the subdivision,

and there's an argument in the letter

that the Kinross extension doesn't really have a benefit

to the larger Marchbank subdivision.

But what that argument misses is that what was actually

offered were all of the streets in the Marchbank subdivision,

all of which benefited the Marchbank's subdivision

in the subsequently built houses there.

So think all of Kinross, Marchbanks, et cetera, at the time,

because remember this subdivision

was originally approved back in 1970.

So that is a reference to what it says in 1970.

Well, and it's also a reference to the fact

that the subdivision actually did benefit from all the roads,

including Kinross that's built today,

as well as the Kinross extension.

And then if you think back to some of the comments

I made earlier this evening

about how in the general plan in the 1970s,

it was anticipated that Kinross

would actually connect through to Seven Hills Road.

And at that time the land use designation

on the Seven Hills property was kind of a low density

residential, four to seven units per acre.

And so it was benefiting at the time

that that offer of dedication was made.

So again, we think that meets all the requirements

of the Subdivision Map Act.

The next issue that was raised,

and it was addressed a little bit in comments made

by council, actually both councils,

was this idea that there was in the 1973 subdivision

an area that was referred to as a do not disturb area.

So essentially a save area.

That area is actually in this separate subdivision.

So if you think of the large March Bank subdivision

to start with, there were parcels in that

and one of those parcels was subsequently

resubdivided in 1973.

And as part of that subdivision,

which did not touch the Kenross Drive extension at all,

there were some areas that were designated,

do not disturb for purposes of habitat.

And so that doesn't control the circumstances

that's before you tonight

because those references on those maps

specifically exclude the Kenross Drive extension.

They're near it, but they don't include it.

The next issue, one of the next issues that was raised again

was one we discussed a little bit earlier,

which is Laudé and whether or not Laudé had some kind

of restrictions on it when it was dedicated to it,

it doesn't.

The grant deed is very clear.

It's just a grant deed of it.

So the council is not bound by any restrictions

on the grant deed itself.

There is one argument that was made in the letter

that was not made by council tonight

during the presentation.

And that is that the city did not comply

with the street vacation process

to bring the items before the council tonight.

And we would agree that we didn't comply

because we didn't have to.

The city's not vacating a street tonight.

I want the record to be clear about that.

The city is conveying lot A, which it owns in fee right now,

not an easement, which it owns in fee.

So that 50 square foot is just a straight conveyance.

That doesn't require a vacation process.

And when the city accepts the irrevocable offer

dedication this that road that section of Kinross everything up to the last

foot if you will is going to remain a public street it'll be maintained

pursuant to the improvement agreement by an obligation that speaker has but it

will in fact be a public street so we're not vacating any streets or easements

this evening and that's why we didn't follow the procedures for street

vacations night because it wasn't necessary the next issue was one that is

raised in the context of the annexation agreement that is before you tonight, and specifically

the annexation agreement, the concern that was expressed about that was that the agreement

binds the property owner current and future to not oppose annexation if the city were

to decide at some point that they wanted to apply to have it annexed.

So as the council recall, there are a number of islands, if you will, in LAFCO or annexation

parlance and the the Seven Hills property is one of those and so at some

point the city may want to annex the Covenant not to oppose annexation only

applies to speaker and their successors for the property that the county has

approved their development on so no any other member of the public any other

member of the adjacent neighborhoods could participate in the LAFCO process

could oppose any annexation that the city might be involved in, and frankly if the county

started an annexation process, the city could oppose it if they didn't want to accept the

property in.

The covenant that is in the packet tonight only prevents speaker and their successors

from being able to oppose the annexation if the city starts it.

And then there were two final issues that relate to the general plan.

And one of the comments that was made in terms of consistency with the general plan was that

Walnut Creek does focus a lot of residential development in the downtown area, in the housing

element as the council recalls.

And then there was an argument made out of that, that this is inconsistent with that

because it's not in the downtown area.

As the council will recall, part of what HCD required

in our housing element was fulfilling

the concept of affordable FFH housing.

So housing that's distributed at different income levels

in different geographic areas within the city.

And even though this project is not in the city

and we're not going to,

the city's not gonna receive arena credit for this,

the county would receive the arena credit,

it does further that goal as well.

and that is a requirement both of,

it's definitely a requirement of the city's general plan

and I'm sure it's a requirement

of the county's general plan as well too,

that they have a greater distribution

of the units that are available.

So that argument that somehow or another

it being out near the Seven Hills property

is inconsistent with the city's general plan is not correct.

The last part is that there was an argument

made about how some of the design aspects of it

are not consistent with the city's general plan policies.

And I would just offer in response to that,

that again, this is a project

that was approved in the county.

And so the land use entitlement

for the actual project itself

as distinguished from the access issues

and the drainage issues

that you're being talked about tonight,

they weren't required to be consistent

with the city's general plan.

They were required to be consistent

with the county's general plan,

which the county did make that determination earlier

that they were consistent.

So that covers all of the issues that had been identified

and if the council were at some point to want to add

that one condition that some of you talked about

with the speaker representative,

we could add that to the council's consideration of action

on the tree removal permit appeal.

One other thing I wanted to double check with you

and I think we have this discussion early on

is the impact fees on senior housing

that we have not collected those

on other senior housing projects?

Yeah, that's correct.

That's my understanding, Terri.

That's correct.

Okay.

So these aren't impact fees.

They are community benefits.

They are.

What is coming from the purchase and sale agreement

is the purchase price for the property

and everything else is in the form of a community benefit

or an obligation on the developer.

So if you think about the construction of Ken Ross Drive,

if the council were to approve that this evening.

One more question for,

this is a question, public works question.

And it has to do with the concern

about the left turn pocket going on to March Banks

and whether or not that's adequate for the traffic,

particularly doing construction when you have the trucks.

I know we talked about having the,

forget what you call them the truck rodeo guy. Yeah during construction we'll

make sure we manage the trucks to the best of our ability and once the

project is complete I don't have the traffic analysis in front of me and so I

don't can't speak to that left turn pocket at this point so I don't have an

answer for that one. Thanks. Can I ask you a couple additional questions excuse me

So Seven Hills Ranch Road came up again. The environmental documents described it

as 17 feet wide for what I assume is from the gate at the bottom of the

property to Walnut. Is that a fair assumption? I don't know exactly how wide

it is. I never have measured it. It was in the environmental. Okay. It's 17 feet and it

would need to be 50.

I mean, that's a 33 curb to curb.

So we would, if it was a city project, this type of roadway,

we'd ask for a 50 foot of right of way.

And the roadway width would probably be 40 feet,

would be my guess, but we'd end up requesting at that point,

counting sidewalks and everything else.

So it's not there now?

No.

I was wondering, I'm counting down the tower.

I just wanted to clarify.

I mean, the EIR in the alternative section said

talking about Seven Hills Ranch Road as the alternative

would require 50 feet right of way

to accommodate a 33 foot curb-to-curb roadway

and six foot sidewalks on either side.

12 and 33, that's 45, but.

It's not there now.

No.

I'm thinking we're done with questions.

heads are nodding so yes we are all right now we begin the hard part of

this and that's the deliberations who would like to start Mayor Pro Tem you've

asked some really good questions your reward is you get to start okay I

actually got COVID so that I didn't have to come here tonight but I tested

negative earlier today somebody was saying were you kissing everybody down

at the BART station to get COVID. This is a tough, tough issue. Anytime we have people

coming in as equally in support and as opposed, it's a tough issue. And I think in part we got

here because of some poor planning back in the 70s when this is a parcel that should have been

in part of the city. These pockets of county land within the city drive me crazy.

but it is where we are. We can't go back to 1970. I'm also not thrilled with the way the county

handled the process because it truly is, I mean it is their place to make plans for land that's

in the county but it's one of these things where it's the county's project but all of the impacts

end up on the city and we're asking you know a lot of those impacts end up on

our voters and our people but here's where we are we have tried to go through

in a good faith effort and say we are asking our people to accept adverse

effects how can we provide some benefits and so we've gone through and looked at

the traffic impacts and come up with a set of funding amount that should allow us to

make some significant benefits for traffic. We've looked at the impacts at Heather Farm

and said we want some community benefits there to benefit the neighborhood and to benefit

the city. I think when I coming into tonight I was worried about the way

that the permits were nesting with each other. I've had enough experience with

core and regional board permits that I know they're never a done deal to their

done deal and I was worried about that being a problem with the applicant's

willingness to say that he would not,

we would not issue the tree removal permit

until the 401 certification is received

from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

I think that lays that issue to rest

that somehow the 401 process is gonna go off

in a different direction and we'll have cut down

a couple beautiful trees for no reason.

And who knows what that process would be,

but I've been around 404 and 401 long enough

to know that it can go in weird ways.

So I've always said this is,

the first time I met Michelle Sheehan and others out there,

I've always said there are projects that I have dealt with,

which are, of course yes.

There's projects that make common sense, they're great.

I've also met a lot of projects in my years

that are hell knows,

But those tend to be projects that dam wild and scenic rivers,

extirpate endangered species, our big leapfrog developments,

new towns in the middle of natural areas.

This is a project that I've always

thought of as a yes, but.

And what are those buts?

And that's where I think I am willing to go forward

with this with the 401 certification condition

and the mitigations or the community benefits

described in the agreements presented here to us tonight.

Thank you.

Kevin, would you like to be next?

Sure.

Well, first of all, thank all of you

that are still here for coming

and thank the people that came previously

and there's probably still a lot of people

that are watching right now.

Each of you are obviously passionate about this

or else you wouldn't have come

and spent four and a half hours here

when you could be at home doing really anything else.

And I heard some good points on both sides

that were brought up here.

And I'm not gonna weigh in on this project

which has a right to be built on county land

and has been approved by the county board of supervisors.

So my comments should not be taken in favor

or opposed to the project itself,

which again has been approved.

In fact, half the comments we heard

felt that were really more on why the project should or shouldn't be approved.

We're talking about the access point, purely access point on Kinross, which

feeds onto the busiest road in the county, Ignacio Valley Road. So the county

Planning Commission recommended other access points for the EIR and purposes

that are preferred with the least environmental impact, and though the

county decided Kinross was generally preferable, understood that. And the other

access point is also in part on county land which offers a better congruence in

the project in my opinion because it is on county land as well and it would

disrupt fewer neighbors than in the Heather Farms area although granted it

would be more complicated for some of those areas as our city engineer Steve

Weymeyer had said. But access through this area would allow traffic to also be

on treat as well as on Exacio Valley Road which would help diffuse the

additional traffic that would all go on to Ignacio if Kinross were the access

point. So looking at this strictly from a Walnut Creek resident point of view,

Kinross offer the access on Kinross offers almost no advantages for

current nearby Walnut Creek residents, shops, or businesses, and only

disadvantages for neighbors and neighborhoods east and commuters. And the

responsibility is squarely on the city for infrastructure and maintenance of

that infrastructure primarily from Ignacio Valley Road, which

will be highly impacted with trucks and additional traffic. I appreciate that the

applicant explained there be only two large trucks deliveries a week. That was

surprising to me if that is the case, but that is less than the

Amazon truck deliveries on other streets, and that may be true, but it doesn't mean

that Amazon deliveries will also doesn't mean that Amazon deliveries will also not

be occurring they will be so it's not that those trucks are happening in place

of Amazon deliveries Amazon also happens as well and this and there is some

payment for this but in terms of the overall project itself that the city

would be receiving but the obligation will be on the city's shoulders for far

passed the payments. Frankly, the city bears the burden of the traffic and

disruptions with none of the advantage going to the city of Walnut Creek. I

received hundreds of emails on this issue as I'm sure all of my fellow

council members did and while there have been some positive Walnut Creek

correspondence for the project including obviously some people that are here

tonight, Walnut Creek resident response has been overwhelmingly opposed that I've

received. So I look at my personal checklist on this which I use for most

most projects or when a sale of land occurs where Walnut Creek will see an

impact. So is it mandated by state? No. Is it beneficial to the surrounding

neighborhood and nearby neighbors? No. Will have significant traffic impact? Yes.

Will it benefit business and commerce in Walnut Creek? No. Will it help property

tax base in Walnut Creek? No. Is there an alternative to this location? Yes. Is this

representative of the residents desires? I think primarily no in this instance.

Does the public good outweigh the residents desires and in my

opinion it does not in this case? And is the revenue received for the sale of

real estate needed for essential projects? And that's important because it

does come up right? Well after Measure O passed the money the city will receive

is a drop in the pool so to speak. The money for this sale has earmarks which

which we paid out over up to potentially 10 years, and if we were looking at needing funds

for essential projects, that would be more understandable.

But due to Measure O and the expectation of over $10 million in new revenue annually over

each of the next 10 years, specifically for infrastructure, sports fields and crime prevention,

the economic situation in Walnut Creek has changed with regard to those areas.

So to those people that are interested in living in the Glen and Heather Farms, this

This is not a denial of the project.

We can't do that.

It's been approved.

We're only talking about this particular point of access on Kinross.

And as a representative of the residents of Walnut Creek, sometimes bad deals don't need

to be made as the best of a bad situation.

Sometimes they just don't need to be made.

And I believe this is one of those times.

And lastly, I'm going to quote from our former mayor, Bob Simmons, a longtime resident and

and also a former planning commissioner before his two terms on city council and two terms

as mayor who wrote in, and I'll quote, this proposed action saddens me personally because

it undermines the grand history the city has for its past leadership on environmental matters

and it unnecessarily and adversely affects many city residents that the city council

should want to protect, unquote. And it's that last sentence that particularly resonates

with me. I find the sale of lot A would adversely impact many city residents

including not only the homes in the immediate neighborhood but also to any

residents east of that area who rely on Ignacio Valley Road as the primary route

to get to downtown and shop and dine or also get on the freeway. For all these

reasons I have deep concerns and when I have deep concerns I exercise caution in

approving a project or in this case a sale of a property and therefore will be

voting no on this proposed sale. Thank you Mayor and thank you to everyone for

coming out tonight. I especially appreciate the civility that you all had

toward one another even if you didn't agree with the statements that were made

and I've enjoyed meeting you on a personal basis. I think you know that the

The comment that was made by former mayor of Moraga

that this is one of the toughest decisions

that we have to make on the council

and I think council member Wilk explained it well

that this is a tough project

because there seemingly is very little upside

to the city of Walnut Creek and conversely impacts

that are always concerning.

and someone described it to me

as we hold the keys to the kingdom.

I never view my role that way

because I'm an elected person.

I'm supposed to represent every person in the city.

I'm not God.

I'm a council member of Walnut Creek

and how I look at most projects

including land use projects like this

is through a couple of different lenses.

I think Mayor Pro Tem summed it up well

when she said that it's complicated

because in 1970, some decisions were made

that it's hard to match things up.

Well, gee, why wasn't it all right of way?

Why was part of it lot A?

That's where we are.

That wouldn't happen today, I'm pretty convinced,

because the general intent of land use planning

is you want neighborhoods to connect.

You don't want them to wall off from each other.

You don't spite strips and things like that

would not happen in this day and age.

And of course the land use decision itself

rests in the county's hands

because the land is in the county.

And we heard from the director

and I respect the supervisors, I respect their staff.

I don't believe that they took this decision lightly.

It seemed to me that they did a thorough analysis in the EIR.

We sent multiple comment letters, so we weren't satisfied with the responses to our first

letter.

We sent another one.

And then when we didn't get what we wanted out of that second letter, we turned to speaker

and said, okay, you're going to need to provide this to us if we're going to talk about lot

A, sale.

So in terms of the lens, so we have the county making a land use decision, the project's

going forward.

And the question is, where is it going to access?

Is it going to access or Kinross or Seven Hills Ranch Road?

Having kind of walked both areas and driven both areas, I'm firmly convinced that Seven

Hills Ranch Road would not be an appropriate access point for this development for a number

of reasons.

about the right of way so then we've got condemnation of private property

owners having to take place in order for that road to be built. The project's

going forward so if we say no then it goes through Seven Hills Ranch Road and

we have some Walnut Creek residents, some county residents having their land

condemned. The traffic is still coming out to Ignacio more it's

either coming down Oak or it's coming down Walnut. I have real concerns if it

comes down Walnut, because it's going by the middle school,

on a street that's not sized with sidewalks and bicycle

lanes to accommodate that traffic.

So then we've got traffic, and I should say that I don't,

I think this is a less impactful project than a single

family residential project would be.

Probably both on, well certainly on an operational

standpoint from a well from a construction standpoint I think it would

be probably exactly the same and and I'm concerned about that and I'll get to

that in a minute but sorry I'm a little all over the place but where I how I

look at these projects and so we have a the county making a land use decision an

EIR that we're bound to live by because we we submitted comments it's final I

know it's being challenged in court but under the law we have to presume it's

adequate and lessen until the court tells us otherwise so land use decision

made EIR certified that we have to rely on.

So what I'd look at these projects is,

is it addressing its impacts?

And because it involves a change of land use as this one did,

is it providing community benefits?

And I think with the decisions,

with the extra concessions we got,

or will get through the purchase and sale agreement,

I believe it's doing both.

And I think, you know,

I appreciate some members of the HOA

at least acknowledging that we got a good deal.

And I think this was not something,

in my time on the Planning Commission and the council,

I can't think of another community benefit agreement

that has provided this level of community benefits.

I think on the traffic standpoint,

from the drainage standpoint, from our parks and Lesher,

I do want to, so I mean,

looking at it from impacts and community benefits,

I believe that we're in a position now

where it's addressing both those concerns of mine.

If you looked at it from a fair market value,

50 square feet and almost $5 million,

I think we've gotten fair market value.

I like the way that staff presented it in the report,

trying to keep our purview focused on what it should be

and looking at the area land uses, environmental review,

and general plan consistency.

And I think it meets each of those boxes.

I do think that there are some additional conditions

if we get them through the tree removal permit

or else wise the no tree removal

without the regional board approval.

I'd like to see something in if we needed

in the construction traffic management plan

that there's flaggers on the Kenross extension.

So there's no construction traffic

going through that roadway.

And I would like something in the purchase

and sale agreement that makes it explicit

that any traffic improvements that are provided

would be provided within the vicinity of Heather Farm,

including the HOA.

Because I think that the public benefits

we need to be focused on here

certainly should be citywide,

that all shows should reflect this neighborhood.

And so that's where I come down on this issue.

Council Member Silva.

First, thank you everyone for your comments this evening

and your letters and your interest in this future development

and a large thank you to staff for the work

that you put in working with the proponent.

this is a hard decision, but I'm going to start out by saying it isn't one neighborhood

that is potentially impacted. There are neighborhoods on either side. Whether you go Kenross to

March Banks, there is a neighborhood. Or if you go Seven Hills to Walnut and Cherry, there

is a neighborhood. And all of those people care about their homes and their impacts.

So we cannot say, in my mind, that there is a way to avoid

impacting one neighborhood without impacting the other.

So it's a little bit like King Solomon

having to divide the baby.

But sometimes our decisions are like that.

I think people, in many cases, are frustrated

because there was an historical hope

that this would become a park.

But it is private land.

It has been private land for 100 years.

And the property owner did not want to be a part of the city

and made it expressly clear that he did not.

And I know that because I keep running

into people who were there, and he wasn't taking phone calls.

And this was in the mid 1980s.

But it is private land.

And it's been designated for development for 35 years.

And it's not planned for a park.

And the only way it becomes a park

is if somebody can cobble together enough money.

And cobble is a wrong word, because it's

a lot of millions of dollars to procure the land.

And following Mr. Hale's death, as I understand it,

both the family and other interested parties

approached land trusts and conservancy groups.

there was no interested in expending their assets on this property because it was so

expensive because it is land use designated for residential.

I truly appreciate that the family chose to sell their father's property, their family

property to a development that is less impactful and more community-focused.

And I'm appreciative that the fact that the county was willing to do the same thing.

Because this is complicated to figure out how it's going to happen.

I think this, I'm not here to make the land use decision.

But I understand how this decision was made and why.

And I understand that it is, I believe it's the better of the two alternatives that could

have been there.

What concerns me, because something will develop here, is this is a one-off opportunity of

this type of residential community for seniors, and 30 percent of our population is over the

age of 65, so it's not like this isn't needed.

What concerns me is that the next person in the queue would be a residential developer,

and I read the housing element that was certified this last week.

I found the reference to these two, what creates these two parcels.

And it will not be 75 homes on a bucolic 30 acres.

It will not be 150 homes.

They will be looking, and they've listed it in their housing element to replace whatever

if this, if not this, 350 units of something else.

And that's the town homes like you.

then state law will trigger in and density bonus will be eligible and ADUs will be eligible.

Rather than having one property owner you will have 350 or more property owners of multiple ages

with more traffic, more impacts, and you don't know who you're talking to when you don't like

what's happening on the other side of the fence. So for all those reasons I think this is is better

and it's it's delivering housing and no it's not market rate housing but it is freeing up 350

plus other units that can be available to families of varying income levels so the only question as

council member Francois said in front of this council is where the ingress and egress are

and that is the city's issue and how do we and once which one will allow us to have less impacts

on the neighborhood that is is chosen whether you go west or south which one has better opportunity

for traffic circulation which one will be safer which one is prepared to take the traffic impacts

and which what is the impact the biological resource impacts in that small area of wetlands

in the right of way versus what will happen along Seven Hills Ranch Road when you demand and you

take private property for six or seven property owners at, I'm going to be conservative and just

say 10 feet on either side, taking out pools, somebody's home, and then that traffic is still

on Walnut Boulevard and Sherry, which is narrow and winding and has no safe routes to school

or bikes, no parking. It is they're adequate roads but they're not intended to take this level

of traffic from a senior facility and still do the same thing. It is not an alternative

that is comparable to go out Seven Hills Ranch Road. So I think the community benefits that we

will secure through this agreement allow us to mitigate more of the impacts in terms

of traffic a little bit on parks a little bit here a little bit there and so i'm going

to be supportive of this sale because i think it is yes we could have hoped that all roads

led out through the county but there's a walnut creek concrete channel that kind of blocks

that ability to do that so I'm gonna be supportive of this. Okay it finally comes

to me and I promise I'll be shorter than everybody else, not just physically but

my speech. All changes around your neighborhood are scary. I started out

defending, I am a New Yorker, I don't like cows in my neighborhood but I had a

a house that we bought that had a field, not far, within walking distance that had cows

in pasture. And I wanted to defend those cows because that was what I bought. I bought a

house with a bucolic field right by that. Well, that one was actually designed without

I ever knowing it, that it was going to be more development. So more development it was

and it turned out we moved closer to here and I moved to Pleasant Hill and as luck would have it,

next to that property that we bought that was so new and modern and probably an annoyance

for all the houses that had been there for a while, there was another pasture of cows

and I thought, oh good, I'm finally going to get my cow friends.

not long thereafter it came up for development and all of a sudden i'm finding myself standing

before city council saying oh why we need that you're going to turn into another benetha you

don't want to do that ever well it turns out they built the houses and it turns out that people that

i actually dearly loved it lived on the peninsula got a job over here and moved in and they baby

sat for my kid. It was a much better situation for me than the cows. And I

think we have a little touch of that story told again. This is new. This is

this is foreign. You have looked at all the bad things and

magnified them in your head. And I will tell you that it is likely that those

people who have the opportunity to move into this development if it turns out the way it's

supposed to, you better make it turn out the way it's supposed to.

That it will be people that we will get to know and we will get to have them come and

make donations to all of our charities.

They may not have had to pay the impact fees, but they will support our libraries.

not always going to be in your library. And they'll come to our theater and have dinner

downtown and they'll live like they lived in Walnut Creek instead of the county. And

I agree with you, when you look at the alternative coming down Seven Hills through that, it is

a scary thing to look at now and it will only get worse. And Pearl Walnut has been trying

to protect them, their neighborhood, for years and years and years, and I believe they're

even scheduled to get smoothing devices, I don't remember the technical term, but traffic

cushions to slow down what has turned out to be people misusing their roads and putting

their children and a whole school of children in danger.

year ago, I don't see that there is any really responsible choice, but to, especially since

you're not going to take down those two trees, I don't believe that there is any responsible

choice that says that this, we should do anything but sell the property with the changes that

we've requested.

Is there more that we need?

No, I think if the council we have heard discussion about two potential additions to the documents

that the council may wish to consider.

The first one is with regards to the 401, the regional water quality control board section

401 certification.

Staff would recommend that if the council wants to include that as a requirement that

you would add condition seven to page four

of the tree removal resolution.

And that additional condition would read,

prior to the removal of any of the 10 trees

requested to be removed, the developer shall first obtain

a regional water quality control board section 401,

certification applicable in part

to the Kenross Drive extension.

And Mayor, I would ask that if the council

is gonna consider adding that as a requirement

to the tree removal permit,

that the applicant indicate on the record

that the wording that we just identified is acceptable.

So the record would reflect

that the applicant has agreed to that.

If the council wishes to add that we can include that

in the resolution at the time.

The second issue was there was a discussion

brought up by Council Member Francois

about potentially referencing

that the transportation improvement funds

would be used within the vicinity.

Staff, the current purchase and sell language

does provide that the city council

has the full discretion over those funds.

And we would typically do that.

We would typically allocate those out

through a capital improvement process.

And at that point, it would go through its own procedures,

including SQL compliance and whatnot.

And so while we could add that language,

the reality is the control does rest with the city council

in terms of the expenditure of the funds.

So the council can decide how they wish to spend them.

And if they wish to spend them within that vicinity,

that's acceptable as well too.

But that would be a separate kind of budgeting

and CIP decision that the council would make.

So just speaking to that issue, I'd feel more comfortable.

Obviously we're here now.

I think it's important that it be memorialized in some way,

either the name of the fund or our intent,

that those funds be used for traffic improvements

in and around the vicinity of Heather Farm,

is my personal view.

And I would support that.

I don't think it would be unduly burdensome

to track this somewhat separately

and have that intent language somewhere associated with it.

And that would be, sorry.

And if the council were to include that in,

that would be then,

Spent in and around the vicinity of Heather farm pursuant to a capital improvement project in it in and

Fulfillment of any requirements that are necessary so we don't have those in those projects yet

There's no specificity on it, but we have a targeted geographic area. Yeah, that's fine

So which where would we add that Steve?

Dude that can we make it a little broader?

because Heather farm is a park an

And Ignacio Valley Road is what we're primarily concerned about.

Heather Farm and Ignacio Valley Road, like between Bancroft and Civic Drive.

I'm really talking about the March Bank's horseshoe, I think, area.

A little more narrower than that.

So if the council wanted to include that in, we could include that as part of the resolution

that's approving the purchase and sell agreement,

rather than modifying the purchase

and sell agreement itself,

but it would be council direction,

if that's acceptable to the council.

I guess my one concern with all of this

is look at how far we had to go back to research

to figure out who owns what and under what circumstances.

So we want it as hardwired as we can.

So staff understands that,

but you typically when you are spending capital funds,

you do it as part of a CIP.

If you have to do CEQA compliance for those CIP projects,

you do those at the same time.

And there are not specific intersection improvements

that were identified for this project that are offsite.

And so you would normally do that through a CIP process

and you would do the CEQA compliance at the same time.

That's why I'm suggesting that the council wants to

include some direction language in the resolution

for the Purchase and Sell Agreement,

that you could say that the council intends

through the CIP process to utilize

the transportation improvement funds that are brought in

for transportation improvements

in and around the vicinity of Heather Farm

if you wanna follow the language

that council member Francois identified.

Mayor, if I could add just one piece of clarification

is that just from a budgetary perspective,

staff already intends to hold these funds

in specific reserve language

so that it's clear that they get allocated

for the uses called out in the agreements.

So just know that financially

we intend to account for them separately already.

Can we memorialize that in somewhere in the recital?

You can specify that they be set aside in a reserve for this purpose to be used in the

general vicinity of Heather Farm.

And so I see two sections of where as is the first few pages and then the recitals and

which where as are we talking about?

Just trying to find the right choice.

So what I would suggest to the Council, if we're going to do that, so we're on the purchase

and sell agreement resolution which is included, it would actually go down at page three of

the resolution where it says therefore be it resolved, the City Council does resolve

as follows, and you would add an item, well, you would really replace the current item

item six, and move that to item seven,

and you would add an item, a new item six,

that would say that, you know, the city council

intends to establish a designated account

for the use of the transportation improvement funds

that pursuant to a capital improvement project

would be used in and around the vicinity

of Heather Farms for transportation improvements.

Do we only wanna keep it for the transportation

or should we say it also for?

So the purchase and sell agreement does specifically

already tie it to transportation improvements.

Okay, so we don't have to worry about where we put the money

for Heather Farm Park or for the Lesher Center for the Arts.

They're all, under the terms of the purchase

and sell agreement, the funds for Heather Farm Park

are committed for Heather Farm Park,

the council has full discretion on how to spend them.

Same is true for Leisure.

And the same is true for the transportation agreements.

The current agreement before you already limits

their use that way.

A lot of pages to read.

Yeah.

The only other one I thought we'd heard a couple of us

talk about where the construction fly

or prohibiting construction traffic

from using the private Kinross extension.

So that's actually that language.

So in the improvements agreement,

which are for the offsite improvements, including Kinross.

There is a requirement for a construction management plan,

and one of the components

of the construction management plan

specifically calls out that there would have to be flagging

for Kinross during private section

of Kinross during construction.

So that's actually reflected in the document already,

and it will be incorporated

in the final construction management plan

that's subject to approval by the city engineer.

Terrific.

Well, we need to actually take up the items,

I'd recommend that the council take up the resolutions individually.

Terry, do we want to pull that back up again?

Yeah, Susie will, the city clerk will bring up the order that will take them in.

So the first resolution would be, the res, as you can see up on the screen, it would

be to adopt the resolution of the city council, the city of Walnut Creek, making findings

and determination under the California Environmental Quality Act regarding certain proposed purchase

and sell agreement a surplus lands act exemption dedication acceptance

related improvement and maintenance agreements and a tree removal tree

removal permit relating to the Glen at Heather Farm project so moved second

vote please councilmember Francois I councilmember Silva I councilmember

Wilk no mayor pro tem darling I mayor haskew I motion carries 4 to 1 the

the city of Walnut Creek. The

Motion carries four to one. So the third resolution would be a resolution of the

City Council of the City of Walnut Creek approving the purchase and sale

agreement and joint escrow instructions between the City of Walnut Creek and the

Glen at Heather Farms Walnut Creek CCRC LLC. This one would have the edit that we

discussed before to what is it shows in the resolution on page four so it would

would be the new inserted number six,

and then the current six would be number seven.

This is the one that would reference

the separately designated funds

and the use of those funds for transportation improvements

in and around the vicinity of Heather Farm Park.

So moved.

Second.

Roll call please.

Council Member Francois.

Aye. Council Member Silva.

Aye. Council Member Wilk.

No. Mayor Pro Tem Darling.

Aye. Mayor Haskew.

motion carries four to one the next resolution would be a resolution of the

City Council of the City of Walnut Creek accepting the irrevocable offer of

dedication for the Ken Ross right away that was gonna have them oh nope sorry

so moved second councilmember Francois aye mayor haskew yes councilmember Silva

aye councilmember Wilk no Mayor pro tem darling aye motion carries four to one

The next item that the council would consider would be a resolution of the City Council,

the City of Walnut Creek denying appeals filed by Richard Loki and the Heather Farm Homeowners

Association and affirming the Walnut Creek Zoning Administrator approval of the tree

removal application Y23-088 for the Glennet Heather Farm Project.

This resolution would be amended by adding on page 4 a condition 7 and the condition

would read prior to removal of any of the 10 trees requested to be removed.

Developers shall first obtain a regional water quality control board section 401 certification

applicable in part to the Kinross Drive extension.

can I be really anal and say Clean Water Act section 401 that's been

certification so will you make the motion I will make that motion second

Mayor Pro Tem darling aye councilmember Silva aye councilmember Francois aye

councilmember will know mayor haskew all right motion carries four to one the

next resolution would be a resolution of the city council of the city of Walnut

the city of Walnut Creek. I'm

agreement by and between the City of Walnut Creek and the Glen at Heather Farm Walnut Creek

CC RC LLC

Councilmember Silva aye councilmember Francois councilmember. Well, no mayor pro tem darling. I mayor haskew

I motion carries four to one I

believe this is the last one a resolution of the City Council of the City of Walnut Creek approving the covenant not to oppose

annexation of certain property to the City of Walnut Creek, so moved

Mayor Pro Tem Darling? Aye. Councilmember Silva? Aye. Councilmember Francois? Aye. Councilmember

Wilk? No. Mayor Haskew? Yes. Motion carries 4-1.

That is all of the items.

I believe that takes us to the end of the meeting and

we are now adjourned.