uh good evening and welcome to the uh April 11th 2024 meeting of the Waller Creek Planning
Commission. Mr. Secretary please take the roll. Commissioner Kwok here. Commissioner Ward here.
Commissioner Klock here. Commissioner Reiser here. Commissioner Nating here. Vice Chair Anderson here.
Chair Strongman here. And our next item on the agenda is the consent calendar. We have two items
of the consent calendar somebody like to pull one to discuss it or make a motion
to pass the consent calendar move to pass the consent calendar second would
you take the role please who a second was it commissioner word commissioner
Clop yes. Commissioner Ward yes. Commissioner Clop yes. Commissioner Reiser yes. Commissioner
Nating yes. Commissioner Anderson Vice Chair Anderson yes. Chair Strongman yes. Motion passes.
Okay moving on to our public communications this portion of the meeting is reserved for
Commission items not for public comments on
Items not on the agenda under the brown act the commission cannot act on items raised during this public communications
But may respond briefly to statements or made to questions posed
Request clarification or refer to the item to staff. Do we have anybody we'd like to make a public comment and this is anything
but
toyota project
Seeing none.
We will close the public communications
and move on to our public hearing.
Our first public hearing is the mixed use
special district project.
And this is a general plan, north down down specific plan
and the municipal code zoning
and development agreement application Y21-025.
And we'll start out with staff presentation.
Oh, excuse me, one before we do that.
Do we have any ex parte communications between commissioners and the applicant?
I've received emails from the consultant of the Toyota Walnut Creek.
I received emails as well and I also met with them via Zoom.
I also received emails and met via Zoom to go over the project.
Likewise, Zoom meeting.
Zoom meeting.
I did too.
I did, but mine was in person.
So proceed.
OK.
Good evening, Chair and Commissioners.
My name is Darren Newfeld.
I will be presenting on the proposed mixed use special
district project.
The applicant, Toyota Walnut Creek,
is seeking to create a new mixed use special district
overlay shown here in gold to the current auto sales service and custom manufacturing
district or ASCM within the North Downtown specific plan area.
In addition to the automobile uses currently allowed at the sites which are within one
half mile of the Walnut Creek BART station, the mixed use special district would allow
for potential mixed uses including office, multifamily residential, hotel, and or other
compatible non-residential uses.
The applicant would be required to enhance operations of its current auto sales service
and ancillary uses through construction of a new auto sales and service facility located
in the mixed use special district area.
To do so, the applicant is seeking amendments to the Walnut Creek general plan, North Downtown
specific plan, municipal code, and approval of a development agreement.
The proposal seeks to advance the vision for the North Downtown and facilitate the enhancement
and long-term viability of the Toyota-Wanna Creek dealership by allowing for redevelopment
of land within the mixed-use special district with other potential new uses.
The new mixed-use special district overlay would set forth permitted uses as well as
specific development standards and design guidelines that would govern future development
projects within the district.
There is no specific development proposal at this time.
In exchange for legislative changes and approval of a development agreement, the applicant
or future developers would be required to provide benefits to ensure development certainty.
These include a full-service auto dealership, multi-use pathways, and an additional 2 percent
affordable housing above the inclusionary housing ordinance requirements for a total
of 12% affordable housing.
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider and recommend to the City Council
Certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, or SEIR, and to consider and
recommend approval of the requested mixed use special district, amendments to the General
plan, North Downtown specific plan, zoning, and a development agreement.
On October 15, 2019, City Council adopted the North Downtown specific plan to guide
the development of a vibrant mixed use district with residential, commercial office, retail,
restaurant, civic, hospitality, arts, auto sales and service, and entertainment uses.
On February 16, 2021, City Council considered a request by applicant Toyota Walnut Creek
to proceed with an application for a potential general plan amendment that would authorize
multifamily residential, hotel, office, and or other compatible non-residential uses
in the ASCM general plan land use designation as part of a mixed use special district overlay.
On May 18, 2021, a joint public meeting with the City Council, Planning Commission, Design
Review Commission, and Transportation Commission was held to introduce the proposed legislative
amendments and commence conversations between the City's advisory and decision-making bodies
and the applicant, with the intent of refining the focus and direction of the proposed General
Plan Amendment, North Downtown's specific plan, and zoning changes.
No formal action was taken.
Public review of the SEIR was conducted in the summer of 2023, and two public comments
were received during the required 45-day public review period.
Throughout the process, the Ad Hoc Committee met to discuss the project.
We are here today for a recommendation from Planning Commission.
City Council is scheduled to consider the project on May 7.
The North Downtown specific plan envisions the area's evolution into one with vibrant
mixed uses which integrate residential, commercial office, retail, restaurant, civic, hospitality,
arts and entertainment uses while continuing to be an important job, center, and location
for automobile sales and service.
Among the goals of the North Downtown specific plan is to harness and direct market demand
for more urbanized development near the Walnut Creek BART station while also
preserving and enhancing the strong sales tax base in the area, especially
the auto sales and service uses which are concentrated within the plan area.
Additionally, the North town town specific plan seeks to protect and
enhance the existing jobs and auto sales and service industry in the plan area,
including promoting new, urban showroom designs for auto dealerships looking to redevelop their properties.
By way of background, the North Downtown Pacific Plan currently has two special districts,
an arts district, shown here in red, and a Makers Row, shown in blue,
which are intended to create opportunities for handcrafted manufacturing, including brewing, ceramics, jewelry making,
and shared technology or tool space. The proposed mixed use special district overlay would become
the third special district in the plan area, which is indicated here in purple. The proposed
mixed use special district is 6.2 acres on sites A, B, and C located approximately one half mile
from the Walnut Creek BART station. It is generally bounded by North Main Street to the west,
Pine Street to the north, Civic Drive to the east, and Ignacio Valley Road to the south.
It consists of a total of 10 parcels, referred to as 2100 North Main Street, which is site
A, 2150 North Broadway, site B, and 2100 North Broadway, site C, and is located entirely
within the boundaries of the North Downtown Pacific Plan.
The applicant also leases land at site D, where they operate the existing Toyota dealership,
and site E, within the boundaries of the north downtown specific plant area and near but
outside the 6.2-acre mixed use special district, which is on sites A, B, and C.
The mixed use special district is intended to provide opportunities to maintain and enhance
auto sales, service, and related ancillary uses in a transit-rich urban environment
by creating opportunities for more intense mixed use development.
The project site location in proximity to BART is ideally situated for the development
of a larger mix of uses.
This would enable redevelopment by facilitating the future development of more intense multi-family
residential, hotel, and or other compatible non-residential uses on the project site.
The amendment to the North Downtown specific plan area would include additional Florida
area ratio, or FAR, however, for 100% residential buildings in the mixed-use special district,
FAR does not apply.
Rather, buildings would be subject to a maximum density of 107 units per acre.
Under any development scenario, the maximum total residential units for the mixed-use
special district would be 658 using the space density.
Of these units, 12% must be affordable to low and very low-income households.
If affordable units are constructed with market rate units as an integrated development, the
unit mix, that is the number of bedrooms per unit, of the affordable units shall be in
the same proportion as the market rate units.
If only stand-alone affordable units are proposed, that is, market rate units will not be integrated
with stand-alone affordable units, then there is no unit mix requirement.
Under no circumstances, however, shall the stand-alone affordable units be single-room
occupancy units.
The stand-alone affordable units must be comprised of a mix of studios, one-bedroom and two-bedroom
units. The mix must be no more than 50% for studios, and at least 10% one-bedroom, and
at least 10% two-bedroom. Each unit must be at least 350 square feet. The project would
exceed the current inclusionary housing requirements. In accordance with the City's inclusionary
housing ordinance, any voluntary affordable units, that is excess units above the 12%
are required, constructed as part of the project, are subject to the inclusionary zoning credit
transfer provisions for purposes of other housing developments constructed within the city.
State density bonus, if pursued in the future for the mixed use special district,
could allow additional units, as well as allow heights greater than the maximum allowed by measure
A, which limits heights within the city. The proposed 12% affordable units can be used
to create additional density and other reductions of standards. However, through the development
agreement and recognizing the importance of Measure A, the applicant has agreed to limit
maximum building height if density bonus is utilized to 89 feet. The graphic on the right
height shows the maximum 89-foot height with the green bar.
For comparison, this is below the height of the California Plaza, which is 158 feet, and
what could be achieved in theory utilizing density bonus for this project, which is 18
stories, shown in the middle bar graph.
Without limiting the number of incentives or concessions as authorized under state density
bonus law for an application for a subsequent approval within the mixed use district.
The city would grant an additional two incentives and or concessions to be applied at the developer's
election in the special district.
Incentives and or concessions include things like increased density, a reduction in site
development standards such as setbacks and minimum square footage or other regulatory
incentives or concessions, such as special parking requirements.
The North Downtown Specific Plan includes a proposed east-west multi-modal path along
several of the parcels of the proposed district, as noted on the right.
The development agreement provides for dedication of a public trail easement located along the
southern edge of Site A. When a development project comes forward, the pathway would be
constructed by that developer. The easement area must be 16 feet in width for at least 80 percent
of the length and evenly divided between hardscape pathway and landscape areas. The pathway cannot be
less than eight feet wide. If the developer acquires ownership of site D or has entered into
a purchase agreement to acquire all of site D, then a public trail easement eight feet wide will
will be dedicated to the city
for future improved pathway
along the southern edge of Site C.
If the developer does not convey the Site C easement,
then the developer of the auto dealership
shall pay the city $500,000.
The city may use the money at its discretion
towards the cost of providing a pedestrian connection
between the Iron Horse Trail,
which is shown in this graphic
with the solid green line on the right,
and the North Downtown specific plan area.
The development agreement has an initial period of 10 years
with the ability to extend for another five years.
A full service dealership needs to be developed
with a minimum building area of 45,000 square feet
for auto sales, services and ancillary uses.
The dealership must be located on sites A or B,
or can be instructed in part on site D
if the applicant is able to acquire Site D.
If a multifamily housing development is proposed
to be built, 12% affordable housing would be constructed,
which is above the city's inclusionary housing ordinance
of 10% for low and 6% for very low affordability.
The developer will also pay the city 450,000
to be used by the city for affordable housing programs.
Environmental impacts associated
with the development of the North Downtown specific plan
were previously evaluated
in the North Downtown specific plan EIR,
which is adopted by city council in October of 2019.
That EIR analyzed impacts of that specific plan,
which resulted in impacts to air quality,
greenhouse gas emissions,
noise, hazards, and hazardous materials, and traffic.
Of these, traffic impacts were significant and unavoidable,
primarily based on level of service
and impacts to Caltrans freeway segments.
The rest of the impacts
were mitigated to less than significant.
The SEIR for the mixed use special district
was prepared to analyze the changes
to the North Downtown specific plan EIR
associated with the redevelopment
of sites A through E by the applicant.
Although no specific development proposal is being made,
the proposed district would allow for additional
and more intensely developed uses and redevelopment of sites within the district.
The mixed-use special district and redevelopment of sites D and E would not result in any new
or more significant impacts than were already analyzed in the North Downtown Specific Plan
EIR.
There is no specific proposed project at this time.
Because there is not a specific development proposal, various scenarios were developed
in order to study a reasonable possibility of future development and to study the environmental
impacts of that proposal.
In each of the three scenarios detailed on the following slides, a full service dealership
would be developed along with other possible uses.
Any future development must fit within the envelope of what was studied in this supplemental
EIR and comply with the maximum number of use types indicated in the scenarios which
I'll discuss on the next slide.
These three scenarios do not represent or limit how actual subsequent developments can
take place.
Rather, they were developed based on a reasonable worst case scenario of what might occur in
the future within the mixed use special district.
All scenarios include auto sales and service of 142,094 square feet and 40,564 square feet
of office.
Scenario 1 has an office emphasis, with roughly 473,000 square feet of additional office space
that could be developed resulting in a total of 514,000 square feet of office space.
Scenario 2 includes a mix of multifamily residential and hotel uses with 132 units of multifamily
residential and 723 hotel rooms.
Scenario 3 emphasizes multifamily development with a total of 658 multifamily residential
units.
Scenario 3 reflects the reasonable worst case scenario for almost all environmental topic
areas studied under CEQA.
Where scenarios 1 and 2 represent the worst case scenario, a particular issue area, those
were of a particular issue area, those were identified and evaluated in the supplemental
EIR.
The use of these scenarios ensures the SEIR provides a conservative analysis and enough
information for decision makers and the public to understand potential environmental impacts
and consequences of the proposed project.
Where impacts from the project were potentially significant, the SEIR identifies mitigation
measures to reduce those impacts to less than significant.
All impacts from this project can be mitigated to less than significant.
There are no statement of overriding considerations for this project.
The issue areas on this slide are those that were potentially significant, but with mitigation
were reduced to a level below significance. All other issue areas were either less than significant
or were not impacted by the mixed use special district. The SEIR was circulated on June 30,
2023, and the City received two public comments before the end of the 45-day public review period.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife recommended modifying the project's mitigation
for impacts to roosting bats.
The city was amenable and a minor modification was made to this mitigation measure.
If bats are excluded from structures during construction, bat houses shall be installed
adjacent or as close as possible to that construction so that the bats have a place to roost.
And the East Bay Municipal Utility District noted that the project requires a water supply
assessment and commented on the SCIR's notice of preparation. The water supply assessment was
completed and returned to the City in 2023 in February 2023. That project would be required to
comply with all applicable East Bay Municipal Utility District standards. Staff is here today
before the Planning Commission seeking several recommendations. Specifically, staff recommends
the Planning Commission move to adopt the resolution recommending to the City Council
the certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report including adoption of all relevant
findings and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and move to adopt the resolution
recommending to the City Council the adoption of the resolution to amend the general plan
the North Downtown specific plan, an ordinance to amend the Municipal Code,
zoning ordinance inclusive of amendments to the zoning map, and an ordinance
finding that the development agreement is consistent with the general plan,
North Downtown specific plan, and zoning ordinance as amended
and approve and approving the development agreement. This concludes
staff's presentation and we are available for any questions. Thank you
for a great detailed presentation and we'll start out with questions of council to staff.
To the commission to staff, yes. Staff would just like to make a quick correction. So on attachments
to exhibit C, page two, item eight. Instead of February 22nd, 2024, it should be today's date,
April 11, 2024. Okay, thank you. Who would like to start with questions and staff? Thank you.
The $450,000 fee for affordable housing that comes in if there's any market housing,
market rate housing in the development, is that correct? I'll ask Claire to confirm, but yeah,
Yeah, go ahead.
Claire Lias is the city attorney.
That is correct because the trigger
for that housing obligation would be the construction
of a proposal with that market rate.
And is it tied at all to the number of market rate units?
So it is determined based on the progress
of affordable housing.
So it is the $450,000 payment
but that can potentially be offset
if the required affordable unit component plus the voluntary,
any voluntary units on top of that 12 percent is being constructed.
There is a factor and a formula in the development agreement
that allows the calculation for that payment to be offset based on the product.
It'll be reduced.
Correct.
Okay. And the, you mentioned that the development agreement could be extended
from 10 to 15 years, who has the option to do that
or is that something that would have to be renegotiated?
That is at the applicant's option
and I believe it has to be requested at year eight
to extend for another five years beyond year 10.
And is that discretionary on the part of the city
or is that just sort of an automatic extension?
It would just be an automatic extension
but they have to notice the city that that's happening.
And just a general question of your observation or opinion.
Do you find that this proposal is consistent, maybe not with the current
downtown specific plan in terms of details and requirements and so forth,
but with the intent of the plan to expand the options that are available here?
Yes, we did a thorough analysis in the supplemental EIR particularly in the land use chapter
determining consistent with the relevant policies in the north downtown specific plan
and the general plan as well. Thank you. Who else? Yes. So I am not as experienced with
overlay districts on top of existing auto districts and I'd like to hear a little bit
about the thought process of how we can make sure how the development agreement makes sure
that a mixed-use building in that setting will be compatible with all the auto dealers around
and how the development agreement addresses that would be helpful for me to know.
So the proposal that is before the city is there is two parts. So one is the legislative
amendments that is being requested and the development agreement presents that as
vesting the developer's right to do a subsequent project in accordance with those standards.
So in that sense, the subsequent project would follow what has been approved as the legislative
amendments and all of the standards and the development regulations that's in the overlay
district.
And so the development agreement vests that and in order to comply, I mean, to do the
project the developer has to comply with those those requirements so it moves
forward that way. Yeah and as I remember there was some specific standards about
you know fencing and things that would make it physically blend better in the
middle of that. Correct and that's the consideration that goes into the overlay
zone that you know if at the high level it's the kind of the land use policies
and visions that the general plan the North downtown specific plan and then
and going down to the more specific zoning,
the allowed uses and the property development regulations
that's set forth in the overlay.
Who else would like to?
Commissioner Ward, please.
So there were three options,
theoretical options presented,
one of which was only office buildings
with no housing at all.
And so in that, if an option like that was chosen,
is there any concession payment to the city
for not providing the hope for housing affordable otherwise
in that area?
Sorry, can you repeat the second half of that question?
I just wondered what would happen
if the option of office only was selected?
Would there be any payment to the city
for lost opportunity for housing
to be created in that area?
So the affordable housing component is triggered
by a residential component in a project.
And so, you know, if that's not the path
the affordable housing obligations would not be triggered, it would not be
activated under the DA until such time that there is a market rate component, a
residential component to it that's included in a subsequent project. I just
wanted to supplement my response earlier to why St. Anderson's questions about the
five-year extension that it's also that the developer notices the city but they
also must not have any uncured defaults under the agreement, otherwise that
that would not happen, but if they didn't,
it would be an automatic extension.
Commissioner, go ahead.
I'd like to ask a question more to the,
compare and contrast this proposed district
with respect to the other two existing districts
inside the North downtown specific plan.
So there was mention of Makers Row
and also the Arts District.
And I did realize as I was reading through the documents
that this proposed district, the mixed use district
is primarily one property owner,
if that's an accurate way to describe it,
whereas the arts district and the makers row
are consisting of several different parcels
that may belong to different property owners.
So were the creations of the arts districts and makers row,
were those processes very similar
to what we're looking at now,
or were they substantially different?
and how would that affect what we're looking at today,
considering today?
That is a question I might want to ask staff
in relationship to how the North Downtown Specific Plan
was developed and how those uses were determined.
But based on the overlay
within the North Downtown Specific Plan,
that Arts District primarily consists of the auto sales
and some mixed use commercial.
So it doesn't appear there's any residential allowed
in the Arts District under the North Downtown Specific Plan.
And the Makers District appears to include
both the mixed use commercial, some pedestrian retail,
and it looks to be a little bit
of mixed use residential within that component,
so that would be an allowed use within that district
under the North Downtown Specific Plan.
All right, thank you.
Anyone else right now?
Then I'll jump in with some of my questions.
Sorry, okay.
I was, it was a great presentation, by the way,
so thank you for that.
In the findings of fact,
speaking of alternative locations,
it's interesting how in section 1.8.2, it discussed,
alternate is considered but rejected
from further discussion in the draft, right?
It's about the discussion of you had the one
which is all office too,
which had the mixture of office hotel,
Resi, and then the third had the biggest impact,
if you will, of the Resi.
But when I started reading this,
I started thinking about TOD programs,
transit-oriented developments,
and kind of that thought process of how that,
and one thing you brought up was,
located within a half a mile of transit stop or station.
So could you describe to me,
When in here, it stays very clearly.
Given the project sites adjacent
to the Walnut Creek BART station,
there was really no other locations outside,
projects outside of the NDSP and farther away
from the BART station that would not be conducive
to meeting TOD developments, purposes, and goals.
So was that also, can you just,
was that taken into a consideration?
Because obviously it's a pretty big change
to what we're trying to do here,
but I'm assuming that TOD which brings into consideration
climate change and GHG emissions.
Can you describe to me how that was reviewed
when you looked at the alternates?
Yeah, when we looked at the alternative sites,
we applied the same parameters
that were used to develop the project.
So we looked for a site that was approximate acreage
to the mixed use special district, which was 6.2 acres.
We also looked for a site, like you mentioned,
that was with an half mile of high quality transit.
And we applied some other factors
to that analysis to locate.
And at the end of the day, this was the preferred site.
Those sites were rejected
because they didn't meet the same standards
and requirements that we used to develop the project.
And then also because the applicant doesn't have control
of those sites as well.
And then the other parameter was its infill.
So that kind of also helps from having
a significant impact to, and I have one more question.
I know, I saw the discussion about in the EIR,
there was already the over,
the statement of overriding considerations for traffic.
So I think that went to LOSF or something,
but that's not what you did.
Right, that's not per the new Senate Bill 1043,
that wasn't reviewed here.
But when I took, there was so much for us to review,
but when I looked at the MMRP,
I figured it was gonna be longer than 22 pages.
Do I understand correctly that a lot of,
when I looked at the mitigation measures,
were they mainly revolving around construction-related items
versus more like post-construction?
It depends by issue area under CEQA.
For example, there are some construction-related measures in air quality that have timing that
consider both.
So if a residential is already developed, then we have to do certain assessments to
ensure that construction's not going to impact those residents.
So that sort of splits there.
A lot of it is dealing with construction, but there are a lot of mitigation addressing
operational but the majority of the air quality mitigation are dealing with
construction the bats those are construction right all and then the
then the soil gas grant like all those type of like assessments that are done
or surveys that are done prior to the construction to then assess any
additional mitigation measure okay thank you so much yeah you know I might have
to pull up that document. I don't know, Claire, if you have that handy. Sorry. I need a minute
here. Sorry, I didn't have my microphone turned off. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So I think I'm following.
So those changes were just made to reflect the changes from the project. So we've amended
those documents to add residential and North Main Street and North Broadway to, as part
of the project amendments to allow for those uses for the project?
Well, this particular one is that it seems to be limiting office development only along
Ignatia Valley Road instead of possibility throughout the North Downtown specific plant.
You know what, I don't quite know.
I'm going to ask staff to help on this one.
I see what you're talking about.
Yeah.
I'm just trying to...
Well, while they're looking at that, I'll move on to page 60, which is a similar issue
It appears that we are lowering the heights limits of the entire North
downtown specific plan on page 60 of the same document and what was the rationale
for doing that for the entire North downtown specific plan? Or am I totally
misreading that? Just one moment. I want to get to the page so I can see what you're talking about.
So SIXC is referring to the change for the special district.
I think that there is supposed to be a corresponding color on the height to the highlights that's
in the map, where it's the purple area, and then the blue area.
Right.
It's not the entire.
So it would be it would be adding the 2.5 and 2.8 in the red box into the
Insertion between the 2.5 and 3.5 said I did matches the height, but it would be for the special district
Okay moving on to page 38 of that same document it looks like we're lowering the
width of the lanes going on North main passed the North downtown specific plant is that
intended to be the entire
Which page I am 138 138 and 139 a 138
I think this one is also to reflect
The length the width that would actually be
reflecting what the what the subsequent proposal would and also the very the
right away varies in the 50 foot measurements.
Like I think there are some changes
and fluctuations in that number.
So it's not a strict number.
And so that is included as a clarification
for the width of the right of way.
So if I understand that we will have one width
as we start up Ignicia Valley road
going towards Pleasant Hill
and it will actually narrow down.
That's my understanding to reflect that change in here.
Okay, thank you.
And moving on to, I guess it's the overlay
on page six of the overlay.
And that is where it's referencing
the design and review process.
And is that going to reflect the proposed change
or we're in the process of updating
that process right now, but we do design and review.
Will that, or referring to the old process?
Number M, page six, number M.
in the overlays zone?
So it would follow the current,
so the idea of the development agreement
is to vest the current standards.
And so if that's the, it's the current process,
but because these are all by right,
and then they're the way that they're putting,
it wouldn't be changing from even revise the process,
it wouldn't be a substantial change from that process.
Okay. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions for staff? Then we will move on to public
comments regarding the actual project and we'll start out. Oh, the applicant will start
out first and they have 15 minutes, 15 minutes. Sorry. Don't learn this.
Good evening. My name is David Bowlby and I am working with Toyota of Walnut Creek and
And I want to thank you Chair Strongman, fellow commissioner, well, commissioner, I'm a former
planning commissioner.
What am I thinking?
And it wasn't in Walnut Creek, but thank you, commissioners, for being here tonight.
And in particular, what I want to do is thank staff, too.
This has been a three and a half year long process, and they have been extraordinary
working with us.
And I say side by side, I don't want to denote that this was anything other than working
hard to come up with what is, we hope, something that is in the best interest of the community
and also for Toadia Walnut Creek.
And I also want to acknowledge the Ad Hoc Committee too.
Council Member Darling and Council Member Silva
spent many, many hours with us on this particular project.
And tonight I have Stephen Scanlon with us too,
and he will, halfway through the presentation,
really delve further into the Walnut Creek,
excuse me, the Toyota aspect of things.
So I thought we would do is give you just a little bit of history
of the sites that we're talking about.
So this is an aerial from 1939.
I just thought it was kind of fun to show.
The outline there is where the dealership is located.
But you can see how our community has changed dramatically.
The next slide we did is the dealership was finally completed
in 1974 and you can see there on that image that the yellow portion
And so what I did is I thought, you know,
I was just gonna show this,
but then I said, let me do a little research
to kind of begin to tell us a story
about how this particular area of Walnut Creek
has really matured, for want of a better word.
And the BART station opened just a year ago,
back in May of that year, which prior to that year,
so 1973, you can see the courthouse.
I don't know, I don't really have a cursor,
but you can see the post office right next to
The sliver of the Toyota, Walnut Creek parcel
they own there, that large blob.
And then the courthouse is down below.
And the small industrial condos,
which are right next to the larger,
closer to North Main, excuse me,
California is built at that point too.
And then finally in the late 1950s, 680 was completed.
And in March of 1960, we got the southbound south main exit.
So you wouldn't have to go all the way downtown.
That brings us to the present.
And this is basically 50 years later
from when the dealership was built.
And you can see there's been quite a bit of change
in development.
You can see the Golden Triangle, the Brielle property, which
I actually worked on, the Summer Hills project.
That was probably almost over 10 years ago the residential multi-family there you see Cal Plaza the residents in
we have the transit village you can't quite see but that's right next to bark and
You know, we've got a civic park very close to us. And so what you're seeing is
Walnut Creek we've been a suburban
Community for for many decades, but probably I would say in the last, you know, 12 to 15 years
We're starting to see more and more, especially around the BART station in downtown, a more
urban cluster.
And it's characteristic of the changing times, for sure.
I wanted to take a moment and pause, and you can kind of take a look at these numbers and
I'll explain them in a moment.
But part of the root of this whole process was the city wanted to retain the dealership
both from a sales tax revenue and job performance.
Toyota wanted to stay in the community and then, in turn,
come up with a creative way, which
I'll let Stephen talk about in a few minutes,
of how we could remain here and build a dealership.
Because, after all, Toyota is not a developer.
So we've come up with a creative way again.
Stephen will be able to speak to that.
But the numbers here, and these are all annual averages.
And they're approximate numbers, though.
But it gives you sort of a sneak peek
into what the impact that Toyota has here on our community
from the sales revenue of 175 million.
I was shocked when I saw that number.
I had no idea on annual again.
So approximate numbers, but pretty impressive
which then leads to $13 million in sales tax revenue.
And then you can kinda keep going down the line there
and seeing including the give back to the community
just in sponsorships and philanthropy over a year period.
And they've been a longstanding member of our community,
almost over 50 years now.
The next slide is jobs.
And so you can also get another glimpse
into what payroll and benefits are on an annual basis.
And these are really current,
more current numbers too, as we've collected it.
And we're a little over $11 million in payroll and benefits.
And then not only the investment in the training budget,
But then we've got 172 roughly employees and hopefully with the new dealership that we'll
be able to employ even more people too.
So with that said, what I'd like to do is bring Stephen Scanlon up to talk a little
bit more and give more depth to the Toyota component.
And I normally don't do this, so it's not my wagon wheel.
But because this is such a important project, for me personally, having worked in Walnut
Creek for a long time, I'm a member of the community, I feel like, with DRA and everything,
that this warranted kind of a perspective that is a little bit different than you would
normally see, because we don't have a project.
We're looking for land use to hopefully bring this project.
So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Stephen.
Good evening.
I started on this project in 2018, believe it or not,
March 14th.
It was an interesting phone call.
Toyota North America, the manufacturer,
brought the project to the current owners
and it was kind of a marriage made between Toyota,
the previous owner and the current owners.
And the notion was to try to save the dealership.
There weren't a lot of other places
in the surrounding communities,
let alone Walnut Creek, that a dealership could actually fit.
And so, after the marriage was made,
it was actually a good thing and a bad thing.
Very expensive land, not a lot of opportunity
to relocate the dealership,
and so we had to come up with a creative solution.
How can we keep the dealership in Walnut Creek,
redevelop the property, afford to build a new dealership,
and come up with a method to finance it?
And the other thing that was also important,
the current dealership is on lease land
and the lease expires in about 17 years,
and we wanted the new dealership
and the improvements to vest on land that we owned.
So we wanted to relocate the dealership
within the mixed use special district.
So we came up with the mixed use special district
as a way to retain the dealership.
We felt like the goals of the North Downtown Plan
and Toyota's goals were harmonious.
And we could synchronize our development proposal
with the overarching goals of the North Downtown plan.
As David mentioned, we think that we're putting density
where density belongs in a part of the city
that's less impactful to other parts of the city.
And in addition to that, we retain the dealership.
And then as David mentioned earlier,
there's the mid block connection,
which seemed to be a very important goal
for the North Downtown Plan and part of the future vision.
We were through a lot of study
and effort able to accommodate it
and still fit the deal,
we believe we will still be able to fit the dealership in.
As David mentioned, we're not developers
and we had the unfortunate timing
of starting this process on February 19th, 2020.
It's like somebody put a bullseye on my back.
So we started the process and we realized that
with the pandemic and land use and real estate market
and all the unknowns that we really needed
a two stage process.
And as David mentioned, we're not developers,
we'll redevelop the dealership,
but the other land uses,
those will go to a third party developer
who's yet to be identified.
land uses at the time in 2020, we didn't know what the post-pandemic world, if there was a
post-pandemic world, what it was going to look like. So stage one allows us a rezone and opens
up the potential for the different land uses. Stage two is identifying a developer and looking
at the development proposals to bring the dealership back and then whatever else comes with it.
And we think that we thought at the time, and we still believe that that was the best way to get
through the pandemic and provide enough flexibility in the land use, providing enough flexibility
with the land uses to allow a future development to be successful. And our goal has been
flexibility and a little bit of creativity. So as I think Claire mentioned earlier, staff was
really involved in great detail over the last probably six months in tailoring the overlay
district design guidelines to accommodate a dealership with these other potential uses.
So we've looked a lot at what if it's a what if it's a dealership and a residence what would that
look like. How do we accommodate them? What's the future design going to look like? We spend
a lot of time not just with the land uses but also with making sure that the design
guidelines were cohesive and co-aesthetic. Again, staff did a great job and we're very
happy with the results. So thank you. Any questions for the applicant right now?
Just a quick one, I know you don't have a project for us.
Do you have some thoughts or plans for where the new dealership would be in this development?
When we did the initial yield studies, we looked at just maximizing the impact and then
creating an envelope large enough so that whatever we brought in in stage two would
would fit within that and that we were secure
in the entitlement in the zoning.
Subsequently, when we had to study for the,
one of the things we had to study for was the trail,
the path, so we looked at a couple of options
for dealerships, but we haven't really studied,
we know we can do it, but we haven't studied
in any great detail.
Okay.
Yeah.
Thanks.
Anyone else right now?
Okay.
And then Chair Stromer, I do wanna close loop
on your question earlier about the page 38.
Sorry, we're flipping through the pages.
But the idea with that change is because these new uses
would be introduced if these amendments were approved,
that the new uses would be introduced
north of the Ignacio Valley Road.
And so to avoid any consistency issues,
we would say not that only office development
is encouraged in that area, but it's a long YVR.
So that accompanies the newly unuses
that could be potentially taking place.
Thank you, and now, looks like a question
down there possibly, nope.
We will now open it for public comments.
I have two speakers cards, and we'll start out
with Mr. Ron Gotti, and you have two minutes.
I don't, go ahead.
Can I have three?
Part of it is the first time we've heard
the proposal from Toyota having,
particularly with the three scenarios.
Can I have three?
if the chair is okay with that.
I'm okay with three.
Thank you very much.
I'm Ron Gaddy and I represent my dad's Gaddy family
and the Orlando family,
particularly at 1435 Pine Street.
I've handed out attached maps of our property.
And I'll get right to the point,
we are in favor of the mixed use with the overlay
because we feel that the highest and best use
the property is for residential development. And the reason being with everything here
is that it has to do with the BART station. BART has in deep need of ridership. They desperately
need it. And the scenario number one presented by Toyota for office, right now there's a
huge glut of office space. It's very difficult to convert it to residential because of the
glass on the sides of the buildings. A lot of it's built with steel, which is hard to
change. So in our opinion, it's best that the mixed-use overlay be primarily for residential
because of the location within a half a mile from the BART station. Can't really change
the BART station. However, Toyota, I didn't hear it mentioned at all, bought 2.1 acres
right out to the corner of Second Avenue and North Main, and in our opinion, that would
probably be better suited for large density of automotive dealership, or maybe have commercial
on the bottom here and residential above, because, again, the close proximity to the
at BART station.
California is a tremendous shortage of housing
in California right now.
And again, traffic is a huge issue in Walnut Creek
just from the last one of the previous
planning commission meetings.
People were complaining about all the traffic.
So, 1435 Pine Street, looking at the map,
you have access from Pine Street,
not on North Broadway, nor North Main.
and that's absolutely critical in our opinion,
that any residential development have access
from Pine Street that alleviates the traffic,
particularly when you're gonna have 658 units,
multifamily and affordable housing,
you encourage the pedestrian use
by walking to BART within a half mile
and getting out of the automobile for climate change.
And if Toyota wants higher density automotive,
then they really should go to the two point acre site
a little bit further north
and make this more for the residential housing
for Walnut Creek with less traffic.
Thank you very much.
Representative North California Carpenters Union.
And you have three minutes as well.
Good evening, Chairman and thank you, Mr. Members.
My name is Cesar Placentia.
I'm a field rep from North California, June.
Today, I stand before you to set light
on three critical pillars of societal well-being,
liberal wages, healthcare accessibility,
and apprenticeships in construction.
Firstly, the concept of a liberal wage
is not just about earning enough to survive,
but thriving with dignity.
It ensures that individuals can afford
the basics of food, shelter, and healthcare.
Secondly, healthcare should not be a luxury,
but a fundamental human right.
Accessible healthcare ensures that no one has to choose
between financial ruin and their wellbeing.
Lastly, apprenticeships in construction offer a pathway
to sustainable careers and economic stability.
By investing in vocational training,
we not only address the skilled labor shortage,
but also provide opportunities
for personal growth and development.
In conclusion, let us strive for a society
where everyone has access to livable wages, healthcare,
and opportunities for advancement.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else from the public
would like to make a public comment on this topic?
Seeing none, we will close public comments
and bring it back to the commission
to debate and discuss who would like to go first.
Don't all jump up, down.
For sure.
I think, let me just comment on Mr. Gotti's suggestion there, that a retail of effort
was spent on the north downtown specific plan which indicated that automotive institutions
should be in that area.
So I think to come in at this point and say,
no, we should make that all residential,
or maybe not all residential, but, you know,
focus, yeah, and try to move things out of it.
It's an interesting thought and, you know,
staff may wanna think about that or pursue it,
see if there's something that might be done
along those lines, but I don't think this is the place
to revisit the North Downtown specific plan
their plans for automotive commercial institutions.
The, I did ask earlier about whether this was consistent with that plan and the intent
of that plan and I believe it is and so just as a general matter, I think it's an appropriate
and I know it has been a lot of negotiation, a lot of discussion with staff.
working with staff to come up with a plan. I think the the addition of the development agreement
you know puts uh not constraints but it puts up a framework for how this will work together.
So I I'm pleased with the amount of work that's gone into this
and so in general I think I'm in favor of making the recommendations to the city council.
I'll just make a general comment.
I'd like to speak in favor of the project as well.
I just, the number, the Toyota numbers for starters
were staggering to me in terms of their impact
on our community.
I know they've been here a long time,
but I find it hard to believe that another area
wouldn't salivate to get that kind of,
get that kind of the business in their particular area.
I think it's a smart integration
with the North Downtown specific plan.
And I am in favor of the project.
Commissioner Ward.
I am impressed with the amount of thoughtfulness that's gone into kind of reimagining what
this area would look like and trying to make it consistent with the North downtown plan.
I also wanted to particularly point out that one of our issues is connectivity of all these
different projects that are not owned by the same people and that have somewhat disjointed
uses because of the just variety that we're seeing in this particular area.
So I really appreciated the thoughtfulness and the significant amount of land that was
being devoted to connect people via whether it's bike or pedestrian or car to make sure
that there aren't big siloed projects that are separated by walls and unable to be moved
between because I think that's really important
to have the makers area be accessible
to the housing to the other things.
So I really appreciated that that was included within this
and I think it's a key component of the plan overall.
So I too am looking on this quite favorably
and appreciate the hard work that's gone into creating it.
So at the risk of sounding repetitive,
it's impressive the amount of work that's gone into this
on all parts, and I too feel that the spirit
of the North Downtown specific plan is born out in this.
And for me, the opportunity to, in a lot of ways,
revitalize an area that's sort of stuck
in a time zone of cars, and think about
what the future might look like.
Housing is one of the things I love,
but I know there is no specific plan,
but I think it's hopeful what that area could do
to contribute to the vitality of the neighborhood.
And so I'm very favorable of all this work.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
Might as well.
I've negotiated a view of development agreements in my time
and this was a quite lengthy one.
So that must have taken a considerable amount of time.
Also one thing that I appreciated when I was reviewing this
was when you have such a high density as 107,
for cost purposes, typically you tend to go up, right,
for efficiency, and I thought it was quite interesting
that you still kept, if you consider a plate height
of 11 feet and a minimum unit of 1,500 square foot,
It was, when I looked at it, I was like, wow,
they're actually stopping it from the baby getting too tall
so the baby has to grow wider.
And I thought, I'm a visual person.
So that, to me, I was, you know, and also for staff,
the integration of, because then the second thing
that I was taking into consideration was,
well, now what happens?
You have the increase of affordability,
but then how does that work with state density bonus?
So the integration of TOD aspects,
of housing legislation,
of even density with regards to how high it feels or looks.
And so you're capping it,
which would then make it go wider.
So then you are gonna have more of that feeling.
It's not gonna have like a San Francisco or Miami tower
amidst of all of these lower scale buildings.
I liked the fact that that was thought of in this plan.
So there was so many pages and I frankly did like
that the MMRP was only a short 22 pages.
That it wasn't that these mitigation measures
and that's why I mentioned that about the traffic
because pardon me, the construction.
So the pre and the construction,
you're always gonna have that.
But the fact that I didn't see a lot of that post
that was alarming to me, to me that made it feel like,
okay, it almost blended or integrated better.
So, for what it's worth.
Last comments, go ahead.
All right, I do share a lot of the perspectives
with the rest of the commission about the amount of,
I do appreciate and want to commend the amount of work
that has gone into this,
especially with the communication of other parties
reaching out to them, notifying them like,
hey, this is a potential land use change
that we're looking at.
What are the things we need to be aware of?
not just from like construction,
but also as we move on into how do we develop this area
to make it a thriving community
and also to adhere to the intent
of the North Downtown specific plan,
even as the surrounding areas outside
of the North Downtown specific plan continue to grow
and evolve and the community changes as people move in
and people move around the city as they consider like,
what could well and quick look like in the future
with auto dealerships in the area,
but also with whatever uses the developers choose to do,
whether it be to encourage visitors from outside the region
or whether to bring jobs to the area
or whether to make it a place to live
because of the excellent locations
of that particular parcels in question.
So I do appreciate thoughtfulness,
internal consistency to the extent possible and the all the anticipated effects that could come
as we proceed down into the future with all of the possibilities. Thank you and I do agree with
my commissioner colleagues. We'd like to thank everyone who has worked on this from the beginning
of the pandemic and that's the ad hoc committee, Toyota, staff, consultants and anyone else that's
put their two cents worth into this project. It's looking like it's
potentially very changing for Wallin Creek,
a very positive way. My understanding is we have to have two separate
votes on this. One is to recommend the environmental impact report to the
city council and the second one is the actual development and changes. That's
correct and there's two resolutions separately for those.
So somebody would like to make a motion for the first one for the
So i will move that we
Approve the resolution recommending certification of the supplemental environmental impact report
For the walnut creek mixed use special district project and adoption of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. I'll second that
Please take the roll
Commissioner quok
Yes
Commissioner ward. Yes
Commissioner clop. Yes
Commissioner Riser. Yes. Commissioner Nating. Yes. Vice Chair Anderson. Yes. Chair Strongman. Yes.
And now we have for the second motion for actually accepting. This is the resolution
recommending adoption, right? I recommend that we move the resolution recommending adoption of a
general plan amendment to specific plan amendment municipal code amendments and development agreement
for application number Y 21 0 2 5 Walnut Creek mixed use special district project and that's
just what the minor change that commission secretary introduced earlier oh yes yes
great commissioner quack yes commissioner ward yes commissioner clock yes commissioner riser
Yes. Commissioner Nating. Yes. Vice Chair Anderson. Yes. Chair Strongman. Yes.
Both motion passes. Thank you. And thank you for all of your work
that you've done. Moving on to commission considerations. Do we have any?
I'm sorry. Not by staff, no. No.
Commission members and staff reports or announcements.
Seeing none, we will adjourn.