Welcome. I'm Lula Haskew, the mayor of the council this year to the Tuesday, May 21st,
2024. It's as close as it'll get. It's our special meeting starting at 4 o'clock. And
opening public commission is the—opening and public communication is the first item.
Under California law, public comments at special meetings are limited to subjects on the agenda
only
Therefore public comments will be received during the council's consideration of the item
This is a public hearing and I believe the staff is ready to go
So would you step forward, please?
Good afternoon mayor haskew and members of the council
My name is Janine Cavalli a senior planner here with the city of Walnut Creek
and I'm very pleased to be presenting to you a major milestone in this project
the residential and mixed use objective design standards as well as updates to
the design review process and I'm joined this evening by members of our team
including associate planner Ben Schuster who will be presenting on the design
review process as well as Alessandra Lundeen behind me with Ramey and
and associates who we work with on the design review standards
and guidelines.
And I would also like to point out
that an addendum with response to public comment
and an errata sheet with additional comments
to attachment three has been provided
this evening at the dais.
So I'll begin this evening's presentation
with a project overview, including project history
and purpose and the process.
And then I'll provide an overview of the adoption draft
residential and residential mixed use design standards
and guidelines, as well as the amendments to zoning
for development standards.
My colleague Ben Schuster will then
provide a presentation on the changes to the design review
process.
And then we also have a minor cleanup item relating
to the CEQA guidelines update.
And then I'll identify the specific actions
that we're looking for from council this evening
before we wrap with next steps.
And I'm joined by other members of the planning division
and the project team that are here this evening,
and we will be available for your questions.
So the purpose of the project is to respond
to a number of state housing laws
that require objective criteria for projects
and to city council direction for a streamlined design review
process, and specifically illuminating that loop back
around where projects would go to design review,
then to planning commission for an entitlement,
and then go back again for final design review
to the design review commission.
In addition to streamlining, the process
also want to create that certainty and flexibility
in our processes.
And then lastly, to modernize our standards, our design
standards and our development standards,
and accommodate new product types and best practices.
So for example, new product types
might include townhomes and mixed use projects
that weren't contemplated or addressed specifically
in the 1996 design booklet.
So the recommended actions this evening
are to adopt the residential and mixed use residential design
standards and guidelines book to introduce an ordinance amending
the municipal code to amend and implement objective development
standards for residential and mixed use developments, the updated designer view process, and fixed
minor internal inconsistencies, and then again that final cleanup item to adopt a resolution
updating the city's outdated CEQA guidelines.
So first I'm going to step back a bit and give a little bit of context, both legislative
and council direction context.
So going back to 2018, SB35 was introduced and it introduced that concept of objective
design review, but at the time it was only for affordable housing.
So we then did a gap analysis and adopted some objective design standards at that time.
And council, when we brought it to council for adoption, gave us direction to proceed
with a more comprehensive update to the 1996 guidelines and standards.
And then in 2019, SB 330 was implemented, which expanded the scope of objective design
criteria to include market rate housing.
In 2020, we were awarded a LEAP grant, which has helped funded the update to the 1996 design
standards.
And then in 2021, that was when Council first identified permit streamlining as one of its
council priorities.
In 2022, SB9 further streamlined single-family housing, so previously, the state was focused
mostly on multifamily, so this is when it first looked at single-family housing as another
area for identifying streamlining.
And then in 2023, the council adopted an ordinance for SB9, which looked, made a requirement
for matching standards where there is a pre-existing structure on the lot where the new SB9 unit
was going to be located.
And so that's been incorporated into the book before you this evening.
And then also in 2023, council gave direction at two different meetings to revise the design
review process and also the role of the design review commission specifically.
So I've mentioned objective design standards a few times.
And while objective design standards
is a term, objective standards more holistically
includes not only design standards,
which are in the Design Standards and Guidelines book,
but it includes other things, such as development standards
in the zoning ordinance or any other objectively written
criteria in a city document.
Objective design standards apply to residential projects
Or mixed-use projects where two-thirds of the floor area is devoted to residential.
And it applies to both, as I mentioned, design review standards and development standards.
What it is not required for is commercial or not residential projects.
And then again, that distinction between development standards and design review standards.
So development standards are what you find in the zoning ordinance.
They typically set the building envelope.
And then the design review standards and guidelines
set more the look and feel and the more of the detail.
So the envelope will be things like your setback, height,
floor area ratio.
And design standards might be something more specific,
like a landscape or a building material.
So with that very brief primer, I'm
going to go first go over the development
standards in a bit more detail.
And then I'll give you an overview of the proposed design
standards and guidelines.
So this slide identifies the key topic areas
for which we have brought forward
proposed amendments or new development standards.
And the topic areas include landscaping, parking and loading,
lighting, screening, residential outdoor spaces, and courts.
And some of these areas, and some of these areas
we've simply moved these from what were previously a guideline or a standard to the zoning because
once something is written more objectively and less subjectively, it became clear that
maybe the proper location of it was actually in the zoning code, not in the design standards
book.
So some of these are simply things being moved, some are amendments, and some are new standards
all together.
So now I'm going to go over the design review standards and guidelines book.
So the purpose of this effort was to a number of items included on this slide, including
clarifying the city's expectations for design of projects.
And we did that through updating our 1996 standards and guidelines.
And we focused, as I mentioned before, on gaps which included some areas where the 1996
book hadn't addressed certain types of developments like mixed use and town homes.
And it was also to modernize the book based on current best practices.
Again this book is over 20 years old and so there were a number of changes that have occurred
in the context of Walnut Creek and the region that we needed to address.
And most importantly is to promote quality architectural design, site planning, and landscape
development.
So even though we've moved from something more subjective and to something more objective,
we still have that key critical component of the purpose being quality architecture
in Walnut Creek.
So I'm going to go over quickly the document framework.
I'd like to clarify that there will be a second document.
The first document, which we're bringing forward
this evening, focuses on residential and residential
mixed use.
And then the second document will come a few months
down the road, and that focuses on non-residential or most
commonly commercial types of projects.
And then to highlight the differences between what
you might see in the 1996 book and this updated design review
standards and guidelines.
One of the items that we were trying to promote
was a very user-friendly document.
So this document includes a lot more tables and graphics,
photos, something that will help illustrate visually
and describe visually the standards.
And sure, the standards are clear and objective.
In the 1996 book, even though there
was language that looked like a standard, like a shal,
the language that then followed was very subjective in nature.
So we made sure that these are objective standards that any non-even design professional should
be able to understand what is being requested or required.
As I mentioned before, we've expanded the design topics and then also moved or removed
some guidelines and standards that really belong in the zoning.
So we went through a robust review process
with a number of different groups
to vet and review the proposed standards and guidelines.
We also tried a creative social engagement
with a social media contest on Instagram,
where we asked folks to take photographs
of their favorite buildings in downtown
and highlight the design features that kind of spoke
to them just to get people to understand the language
and how to better understand their built environment
and what moves them.
We did a number of developer forums and stakeholder focus
group meetings where we did a presentation,
gave the document to folks in advance,
and spent a few hours reviewing the various standards
and guidelines.
And then we also conducted at the beginning
of the project a city working group, which
included two members of the DRC, one a landscape architect
and one an architect, as well as members of the planning
division and the engineering division.
We met regularly and reviewed chapter
by chapter, standard by standard, all of the guidelines,
with the focus being think about you
as design review commissioners, recent projects that
have come to your commission.
think about issues that needed to be resolved, how can we incorporate language that would
make it more clear for the applicant when submitting and more clear for the design review
commissioners of what it is that they should be reviewing the projects against.
And then we held a number of council and commission meetings.
The last council meeting was a number of years ago, but since then we've had three DRC meetings
and two planning commission meetings where we received positive feedback on the draft
design standards and guidelines.
So then once you're in the document, this explains the structure of the document.
Each document contains a number of design topics addressed within each chapter, and
this slide demonstrates that structure.
Each begins with a brief intent statement explaining the overall purpose followed by
list of standards and guidelines. So standards are objectively written as priority design criteria
that all projects must follow, and standards are typically written with shall statements.
Alternatively, guidelines are strongly recommended design criteria with which projects should comply.
There's more flexibility in how projects meet each guideline depending on unique
or different project circumstances.
And guidelines are typically written with should statements.
Projects may opt to go through the discretionary review process if they choose to deviate from
the standards and guidelines.
Instead, they would meet the intent of the standards and guidelines.
And so in such cases, projects would be evaluated for the degree to which they meet and comply
with the intent language.
Lastly, I want to emphasize that though the objective criteria seem like it would be very
rigid and black and white, we've done our best to integrate flexibility into a number
of the standards.
We've done this by creating a menu of options whereby the applicant could select one or
two or however many are identified.
the way in which they want to meet that standard that best works for their project.
So that concludes the discussion around development standards and the Design and Review Standards
and Guidelines book, and now I'm going to hand it over to Ben to review the proposed
changes to the design review process.
Well, good afternoon Council.
Once again, Ben Schuster with Community Development.
So here to talk a little bit about what Jeannine mentioned, how we're proposing to streamline
the design review process.
So what are we exactly proposing to change?
A number of things, we're proposing new roles and responsibilities, new categories of design
review, codifying project review thresholds, again eliminating that loop back around found
in our current design review entitlement process.
And so I'll go through each of those in a little bit more detail on the next few slides.
So looking at roles and responsibilities, you'll see the existing roles of the various bodies
on the left in orange and then propose on the right in blue.
A couple quick highlights, of course, we're proposing
that the Design Review Commission turn into an advisory only body to the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission would assume the approval role for design review for major projects
and the DRC would act as an advisory group to them.
The zoning administrator now, under certain circumstances, can also hear
or act upon a design review application for minor projects.
And then the council now becomes the appeal body to the, well already the appeal body
for Planning Commission but for design review applications heard
by the Planning Commission.
So I mentioned major and minor projects.
What does that mean?
So minor projects, and this is all essentially what is being done today.
We've just kind of added some clarification language.
We've created objective language where we needed to.
And so at the staff approval level, we're thinking four units,
small additions 500 square feet, storefront remodels,
minor revisions to approve plans.
So all stuff that's pretty small in nature.
And then anything that isn't explicitly listed
as a minor project is a major project.
And so that would, those projects would all be heard
by the Planning Commission.
So I mentioned we created new categories of design review.
there's now three, and so I'll go through each one here. Ministerial design review, this is to
enact certain state housing laws like Senate Bill 35. This is ministerial approval at the staff
level. This only applies to a very small number of residential projects, and the city has no
discretion in approving such projects. I do want to note this is a very limited number of projects.
We're aware of just two projects that have come into the city under Senate Bill 35 since
that bill passed in 2018.
Objective design review, again, enacting state law, think Senate Bill 330, using objective
criteria to evaluate essentially all residential projects or mixed use projects.
There is a five meeting limit imposed under state law for such projects, and the local
agency does have very limited discretion to deny a project if it can make a very narrow
set of health and safety findings as those are defined by the state.
And then finally, discretionary design review, think of this as our current process more
or less.
This gives the city the most flexibility and this would apply to all of our commercial
projects as it already does today or to any residential projects that opt out of the objective
design review process.
So now putting it all together, we end up with essentially three approval pathways.
And so I'll go through these in a little bit more detail.
Path A, corresponding to our ministerial process, we have ministerial design review.
Again, regardless of project size, because of state law, staff will always be the approving
body here.
And essentially, we're just ensuring that the project complies with state law.
they do, we issue the approval letter. Under path B, objective design review, we
have two pathways, one for minor projects. Again, think small, major projects, think
large. For minor projects, staff, or sometimes the zoning administrator, would
be the approving body, and for major projects, such projects would always go
to the DRC once for a study session, and then to the planning commission for a hearing
for consideration.
And then finally, Path C, Discretionary Design Review, you'll note, of course, that the approval
pathways are exactly the same as they are under objective design review.
The key here is in how the projects are evaluated.
So under objective design review the reviewing body is essentially looking at an objective
checklist and saying does the project comply with all of the objective criteria yes or
no whereas under discretionary as Janine mentioned earlier the reviewing body has discretion
to review the project as a whole and to evaluate the degree to which the project meets the
intent of the various design standards.
So a couple of real-life examples, and these were brought up at the council last year during
the initial discussions about streamlining.
So I just want to highlight three here very quickly.
This is the minor road project, and so under the old process, this went to a study session
at DRC, then to planning commission for a hearing, then back to DRC, that's the loop
back for final design review approval, and then of course it was appealed to the planning
commission.
So under the new process, we would call this a major project.
It would be subject to objective design review and would take one fewer meeting.
And assuming the project would be appealed, of course that appeal would then go to this
body in that circumstance.
Example two, this is the Walden Garden Town Homes.
This is the project that the council heard, I believe, in 2022 and actually sat as the
Design Review Body 4.
And this is just eight condos.
The reason the city council approved the Design Review
in this case was there was a specific language
in that overlay zone that said the council needs
to sit as the Design Review Body.
And so we've cleaned up that language, among other things.
And so in this case, we would actually,
same project would go through two fewer meetings
because the study sessions at DRC
is limited to one meeting now,
and then back to Planning Commission
for action on all the entitlements.
And then the final example here, 19-
Did you go a little slower?
Oh, yeah, of course.
Maybe take a breath at the end of the slide
because you're still reading, thank you.
So 1910 NOMA, this is a mixed use project
in our downtown,
And so this was 135 residential units and then ground floor commercial space.
Under the new process, this would be a major project.
It would, again, be subject to objective design review.
In this scenario, we would actually gain one meeting because under the previous scenario,
it just went to DRC for approval.
And then the CEQA determination was appealed to council.
In the new process, it would go from DRC to the planning commission.
Can I ask a question about this one?
Yeah.
I can recall all of them, but not maybe the nuances.
Sure.
This originally was not seeking any discretionary changes
in the general plan or zoning, correct?
I believe that's correct, yes.
it was just triggering state density bonus.
Correct.
So it was really, it came to us because of an appeal.
Correct, of the CEQA determination.
And then in all of these examples,
under our current as yet to be changed process,
Design Review could do multiple loops
before it actually got to Planning Commission
as they were debating.
Correct.
And that this, so what looked like maybe four meetings
could have been seven meetings as far as,
Yes, there was no limit on the number of study sessions and now we've
Specifically limited that to one meeting and that was based on specific council. Great. Thank you for that clarification. Yeah
I had a question on this one too that so
The Planning Commission at its hearing is acting on the design review application
Right that all this the only entitlement this project needed was design review
I believe I wasn't on the council at that time, but I believe that's the case
So it's it's DRC to PC is making a final action on
The design review application and then it says appeal of CEQA. I'm assuming the design review application is also
Appealable to the council. I think I can answer that. So under the new under the proposed changes to the process
yes, the Planning Commission would be the
Proving body right and then so any Planning Commission decision would be appealable to the council. Okay, but that makes sense and then
the way the process currently works is
every category of design review whether it's
Ministerial objective or discretionary we treat as discretionary for purposes of CEQA
Currently and that's not changing as a result of these changes to the code
It's it's subject design review is subject to CEQA now and it will continue to be subject to CEQA
with the amendments to the code
Is design review making any decision that would be appealable or if it's it only just advising the next body
So I maybe want to
Split that because I understood councilmember Francois question to be differently than what you're asking
Council were you asking whether did the design review Commission or the design review process the design review process?
Yeah, my answer was to the process not to the bar even if it's being done by the planning Commission, correct? Correct
Yeah, okay. I'll have a comment on that later. Thank you
Great. And so I just want to end with on the examples here just to point out you saw three
residential projects that went through design review.
Under our new process, we would treat them all the same way.
And yet, under the current framework,
they went through three totally different processes.
And so what we've done is we've created consistency
under this new framework moving forward.
And so I have this number here, 17.
This is based on data from January 2020
through December 2023.
We looked at the number of
design review applications that the city acted upon during that four-year time span.
Sixty-seven applications were considered by the Design Review Commission during
that time and 107 were acted upon by staff.
So assuming those 67 now go to the Planning Commission,
that comes out to roughly 17 per year that the Planning Commission would hear for Design Review.
And then of those projects in that same time frame we were only able to find one appeal
of a design review decision and that was actually the Minot Road project.
And so I'm going to end there, see if there's any questions before I turn it back to Janine
to wrap us up.
I see quizzical expressions, are there questions?
So I understand that what you're trying, the impact, I see the number, but could you repeat
again the number of, could you repeat it again and try to whittle it down?
Is it 17, is what you're saying, is that 17 projects in a, that would not have gone to
Planning Commission will now go to Planning Commission?
So in that four-year period, there were the Design Review Commission considered.
After the loan.
Yes.
On a design review application, they considered 67 projects in a four-year time period, which
comes out to an average of 17 per year.
And so what we're saying is because the Planning Commission now effectively would serve as
the Design Review Commission in acting upon those applications,
the Planning Commission, we think,
would see an additional new 17 applications per year,
and those would correspond.
Now, out of the 67 or 17 per year,
were there a number of them that had to go to
planning for tree removal permits or subdivision maps,
but they really weren't addressing the design,
the site circulation, et cetera?
Yes, there's some number that had to go to Planning Commission already, for example,
a design review application bundled with a CUP or a major subdivision.
Those would already go to the Planning Commission.
That's where you would sometimes get that loop around, that loop back, because then
they would get their entitlements approved at the Planning Commission, and then you still
had to go back to the design review commission for the final uh design review approval. So no
longer will the planning commission be able to say oh that's a design review commission problem.
Correct. Anyone else? Cindy. So on the NOMA option or the NOMA example you have appeal of CEQA
as the only thing that goes to the city council but wouldn't like if somebody wanted to appeal
the tree removal, would that also be appealable? So anything that is now appealable that goes
through the process? Yes, you're correct council member. So what this is showing is what happened.
And so what happened was the CEQA determination was appealed, that went to council. Under the new
framework, the design review entitlement could be appealed to the council. The CEQA entitlement
and it would still be appealable to this body, yeah.
Okay, and then, so that explains why on Walden Town Homes
you don't have the appeal there because it came to us
and nobody appealed us to anybody?
Correct.
Okay, so I was trying to make,
I was trying to like, anyway,
now I understand where you're coming from from this.
And then when things go to the Planning Commission,
is there a requirement that that be a public hearing
or is there the possibility of using a consent calendar type
option for some of the smaller design review?
It's a design review project that normally
the Planning Commission would not have heard,
but it would go to Design Review.
Now, because the Design Review doesn't have
any ability to approve on their own,
it's gonna have to go to Planning Commission.
Is it possible to make that a very simple process,
like a consent calendar type option?
So I'll let one of our city attorneys speak to that piece,
but in terms of how we've set up the new framework,
the planning commission only would ever consider things
that we've deemed as a major project,
and staff would always, or the zoning administrator,
would always look at minor projects.
There's no longer the ability like there is now
to kind of elevate certain things sometimes,
Which which led to you know some confusion in the process, right? And that was yet another thing that we tried to eliminate
So the what actually does make it to the Planning Commission would be a public hearing though
so if the ideas could it be just reviewed quickly on consent the answer that would be no it would go it would be a
public hearing and
And this and I know with that has prevented us in the past from just taking some things that were very routine and in
and dealing with them quickly, do we have the ability even though we have the requirement
that there be a public hearing to make it a hearing yet and quick and efficient?
You know, I mean, from a practical standpoint, you know, the Planning Commission can be very
efficient.
We've seen them do that with some applications.
So from a practical standpoint, you could have a very short hearing, but there isn't
a way to say that one is limited to ten minutes and another one can go longer than ten minutes.
You do have to have the formal hearing where you open the record, hear from the staff,
hear from the applicant.
For anything that is discretionary and to the point that Ben is making that actually
gets to the Planning Commission because that's the major design review.
Okay.
All right.
Thanks.
Yes, I see you please.
So it sounds like you didn't just look at these four or five projects that we have on
the dais with us.
It sounds like you went through multiple years of what happened and what would happen in
the future just to check this.
Okay.
Great.
Thank you.
I'm boldly assuming there are no more questions.
Thank you very much.
Next speaker.
Turn it back to Jeanine.
So I'll conclude here with a few slides.
Just wanted to clarify that the description of the design review process that we've presented
or Ben has presented this evening was after council provided direction at the October
24th meeting and staff had a number of meetings to review and come up with a proposal that
we thought best met the direction that we had received.
So then in terms of next steps, we'll
be coming back to Council for a second reading
of the ordinance for adoption on June 4.
And then we will be working towards the non-residential
design review standards and guidelines and development
standards.
And we will be coming, going back first to DRC, then PC,
and then finally Council in late summer.
And then in order to implement the approvals,
we will be conducting a number of commission trainings.
We will make updates to the design review process
to reflect the new process per council adoption.
And we'll make updates to the content on our city website.
And also be preparing some user-friendly checklists
that help both the applicant to confirm the compliance as well
as staff when they conduct their review
of these new standards.
And we will be doing staff trainings as well.
Lastly, the recommended action,
oh, before I do the recommended action,
we brought this to Planning Commission in March and April.
And in April is where Planning Commission
provided these actions.
So we presented the Design Review Standards and Guidelines.
They had no action.
We gave an overview of the development standards
in the ordinance, and they proposed no changes.
Similarly, we presented the designer view entitlement
process changes or amendments, and they did not
propose any changes to what was presented to them.
So the recommended action this evening
is to adopt a resolution approving the residential
and mixed use residential design standards and guidelines
with the errata in attachment 1A,
to introduce an ordinance amending the municipal code
to implement objective development standards
for residential and mixed use developments,
the updated design review process,
including the revised role of the design review commission
and community development director,
and minor internal consistency changes.
And similarly, with an errata that is provided online.
And thirdly, adopt a resolution
updating the city's outdated sequel guidelines
to reference those published by the state.
And that concludes our presentation.
Thank you very much.
We're available for your questions.
But yeah, before.
Yes, please, Matt, go ahead.
Thank you, Mayor.
Thank you, Janine.
Great report.
We did get a comment letter from East Bay for Everyone,
and I know we have a representative here
that's likely going to give comments,
but I wanted to get staff's thoughts first.
know that we have you had prepared responses to those thank you and the one
that you indicated that the council had the option to make a change had to do
with the energy efficient windows in new SB 9 units can you remind me how many
applications have we received for SB 9 units or approximately according to
to our principal planner and current planning
we've received too.
OK.
And I mean, in staff's opinion, is this something that's,
it doesn't seem like a major thing
to allow for flexibility with energy efficient windows,
even if they don't match the primary structure?
Yeah, I think allowing for the flexibility,
knowing again the intent is that the degree to which it
matches, so if there are different products
on the market for efficiency, we might recommend
they select the one that's most similar to the existing unit.
Sure, that makes sense.
And then I kind of referenced the CEQA issue earlier,
and I was wondering, and I know that we didn't provide
any direction on that when we were talking about changing
the process to avoid the loopback and so on,
but did staff give any consideration to that?
Since we seem to be moving to a very objective,
one might call ministerial check the box process,
any thought to whether it made sense to reconsider
whether treating design review
as a discretionary entitlement in our code?
For SQL purposes?
Yeah.
So not any great detail that I'm aware of, Erika,
you can add more in.
I mean, practically speaking though,
the staff does look to the application
of the CEQA exemptions when they are processing projects.
And so it's where projects would qualify,
they are being processed as exempt projects right now.
And that could apply to a significant number of projects
in Walnut Creek because of the infill nature
of the development that we do here.
And so that is something that the council could direct us
to look at further, I do understand that the counsel,
I guess I wouldn't go so far to say that the counsel
has complete discretion to say that you can add
to the categories of exemptions, if you will,
you can have your own CEQA guidelines, obviously.
And if you wanted to exempt some more,
that would be okay, except you just wouldn't have
the benefit of kind of the case law and the presumptions
that attach to the CEQA guidelines.
And so I would, I think it would be,
If the council wants us to explore that further,
I think it would be better if we get the direction
to do that so we could come back to you with some options
about how that would be, because there are,
as the council's aware, there are a number of exemptions
that do apply to residential projects
and in particular, infill development.
And if I recall, even the NOMA project,
which was a pretty major project,
that qualified for an exemption.
So, okay, thank you.
And the trend line is also to allow more projects
to qualify, and I'm talking about even
at the SQL guidelines standpoint,
there's more of a movement towards allowing
more items to be identified.
And again, we would want to report that back to the council
if the council really wants to pursue that further.
What I'm thinking about is if you had a large project
or something like that, then there is some SQL risk
if you're not analyzing and you can't safely fit
within an exemption.
Excuse me.
So that's what I'm trying to work something out.
I guess it would sort of depend
to whether we had any standalone design review applications
that required something more than an exemption.
And sitting here right now, I can't think of any
that had to go through more of a robust CEQA process.
good afternoon Mayor Haskew and Council.
Just to expand on the CEQA topic.
So anything that's ministerial,
we would probably look for an exemption
and then major projects that are under five acres
that would, where we could apply an infill exemption,
we would try to apply that.
In some cases where if it's a very large project
and if the applicant chooses not to go through
the ministerial process and want to go through
Discretionary process then we could evaluate whether additional CEQA that would be required if that makes sense. It does
Thank you
Am I not seeing any more questions from the council if you have no questions shake your head? Yes
There at least you're paying attention
Exactly yes
At this moment, I am going to ask for public comments as there's anybody that would like to come forward and make public comment
It's for up to two minutes. I
Need to leave in five minutes to get my daughter. So this is good timing
Hi, my name is Kevin Burke. I'm with East Bay for everyone. I'm a parent
It's really important to me to make it possible for my kids to afford to live here when they grow up
We're gonna pay $50,000 a year this year for daycare for our two kids
Thanks for making these changes on the whole. I think these are really good changes, especially the changes to the hearing process
We had some concerns with the design standards and I wanted to emphasize that these standards don't have anything to do with the density of construction
It's like given a given density like what the building is gonna look like
I know people are upset about state law, but like this is just about like what it looks like given a density
You might be thinking, you know, these are just suggestions and developers can opt out if they don't disagree with a thing
But I think our interest rates are right now if you have a 9% loan on a building and you take a two-month delay
To get a waiver, you know, that's one and a half percent of your construction cost right there
So, I mean, I think people are gonna stick pretty tightly to this which makes it really really important that you get it
right
I think they do close off
You know the bottom of the range of what a building can look like you're probably moving that up
But I do worry that they kind of put a cap on the top of how good a building can look
One thing we know about architecture is that tastes change over time
In the 1920s people really hated Victorians in San Francisco
You know really common
Dime a dozen you could order them from a catalog and now you know people really like Victorians
You know and they take tours to go see them, so I'm concerned if the goal is to promote really high quality design
And we banned some styles. You know that's we might be ending up with sort of suboptimal buildings
We might not be letting people sort of take chances that that could lead to really a world-winning architecture in our city
These guidelines are targeted pretty clearly at the big blocky podium apartments like the Vias and the way marks on this way of stuff
like massing breaks
You know, I wish we could build something was I just single-family homes or big blocky podium apartments
And I think you know
There's there's changes we can make in the building code like the parking
requirements are probably more important than anything in the design standards for like what a building actually looks like
And what sort of the footprint looks like and how tall it is
and whether you can build it on a small lot
instead of a big blocky lot with assembly.
Okay.
Thanks very much.
Thank you, Kevin.
Take your time and be careful
on the way to be your daughter.
Any other public speakers?
I see none, so I'm bringing it back to council
to have a discussion.
Who would like to go first?
Matt, you were talking the most.
First of all, I'd like to thank staff
and the consultant for preparing these guidelines
and the changes to the municipal code.
I know that some of them are required by state law
in terms of us doing the objective standards
for residential, but eliminating the loop back
with the design review process,
I know has been received extremely well
by the Chamber and members of the development community
as an important streamlining event.
And I'd also like to applaud the staff and the city
for going above and beyond what state law requires us to do
and looking at making the non-residential
and commercial process objective as well.
I think that sends a message to our development community
that the process is fair, equitable, predictable,
and easy to understand.
There's takes out the guesswork.
I was wrestling a bit with the CEQA topic, as you could see,
but I think I've, and I thank the city attorney
for being patient and responding to those questions.
I think that, you know, for the,
I know that staff does a really good job
in relying on our existing specific plan EIRs
and exemptions to the extent those apply.
So that, that maybe that's a little less of an issue,
non-issue, I was trying to avoid that one appeal
of NOMA to the city council.
And I don't know that it's worth kind of the brain damage
of tearing up the whole code to do that.
So I'm excited to see these move forward.
I appreciate the thought and time and energy
that went into it and I'm prepared to support the guidelines.
As I stand, I'm a little ambivalent
on the energy efficient windows.
I think that probably you could find one
that matches the primary structure.
And so I don't know that that's really a huge issue
we need to change the guidelines for,
but I'm open to others thoughts on that.
Okay, Mayor Pro Tem.
Thank you, and I also agree.
I remember when we first started talking
about objective design standards,
there was a bunch of us sitting in the room
and we said, well, can we just say no purple buildings?
And somebody's like, no, purple is subjective.
And it's like, oh my gosh.
It's almost mind numbing to think about
the kinds of discussions you guys have had
to come up with this.
and I really appreciate the thought that's gone into it.
I do know, you know, East Bay for everybody
makes the argument that we have changed,
there's no longer some lofty new thing that could happen,
except through the variance process,
but I am satisfied where we've set a good firm floor.
This is what we wanna see in our buildings.
And I think it's got enough variability in it
that as time goes on,
buildings will continue to change in what they look like
because we are human beings and we will seek variety.
On the CEQA part of things,
you know, I think it sounds like Council Member Francois
has given up his quest for a new CEQA exemption
specific to us.
I think that's, I will wanna check back with that
to see after we've worked with this for a while
to make sure that we have the appropriate exemptions
in there, but hopefully that's good.
I also wanna check back to see how this work
is impacting the Planning Commission,
given that everybody has to have a formal hearing.
Are we being efficient in how we do that?
We don't wanna create a lot of undue anxiety
on the applicant's part and a lot of,
when I was on Planning Commission,
there was a couple times I'm like,
We're gonna take how long to talk about an ATM at a bank
and like, can't we do this more quickly?
So I will wanna get feedback on those two issues.
I'm fine with proceeding with what we have here,
but I will wanna check in on that.
On the energy efficient windows,
I can't envision there being opportunities to,
the building code is pretty strict.
It might be, I have no idea how to do the language on it,
but it might be a good idea to allow some flexibility
on an SB 9 project.
And I don't know, there's probably objective
non-subjective words on how to do that.
But I would be interested in taking care
of that part of things.
But overall, I think we're really heading
in a good direction.
And I think we have a lot of opportunity
to trim the sails here and there as we go forward,
but I'm excited to see how this is gonna work.
Thank you, and thank you for the presentation.
I certainly defer in large part to three
of the former planning commissioners
sitting on the council right now who have dived into this
and lived and breathed this for probably, I don't know,
eight years, at least on each of your parts, 10, wow, okay.
This is why I was not a-
Don't agree, but we have reject during the general plan.
This is why I was not a planning commissioner.
So I appreciate this, I agree with this,
I actually like the fact that, sure,
why not permit new energy efficient windows
in the existing projects?
But I, again, I'll go with the majority on this,
I think this all makes sense.
I understand why we're doing this and agree with it.
Thank you everyone for this work.
And thank you for the history lesson
on where we've been and how we got here.
And I really look forward to the first couple of years
people are going to be responding. I think the what we've designed is
something that is predictable but at the same time flexible which is a why it
took so long to get there. I also think we are going to find some places where
it doesn't quite work and it's okay to bring them forward quickly for so we can
change what we did. Regarding the SB 9 units and energy efficient windows I
don't know how you buy something that isn't energy efficient. It's kind of like
saying well because you had we're using cast iron pipes in the original building you now have to
replace with cast iron pipes but you can't find them and so I think we need to be um
adapt to that and recognize that um but maybe there is a way I I don't know if there's a way
to say they need to be placed and sized to be consistent so that looks like they are but I
that probably is getting subjective. And I think I look forward to the cheat sheets that's not
25 pages long, the checklist. But we love the pictures. We love the pictures.
Pictures help. Well, like Councilmember Wilk, I did not do Planning Commission,
and so it's all been a magical mystery tour for me to watch this but just even listening to your
explanation of what was changed and what got better I understood a lot more of what you did
and how thoughtful it must have been for you it must have gone home thinking there's a better word
somewhere that describes what we want here.
So I'm supportive and I'm really excited
that we did move forward and I think we're gonna be
copied by other cities because it's gonna be efficient
and they're gonna wish they had the same system.
So that being the case,
may I have something looking like a motion?
move the staff recommendation.
I know it was lazy, but.
Do you need three separate motions?
Or can we do it?
Yeah, it would be better if we have three separate motions
so that we can track each of the separate items
that Council is acting on today.
OK.
With that said, I'll move to adopt a resolution
approving the residential and mixed use residential design
standards and guidelines.
second roll call vote please councilmember Francois aye councilmember
Silva aye councilmember Wilk aye mayor Pro Tem darling aye and mayor Haskew
aye I'll move to adopt a resolution updating the city's outdated CEQA
guidelines and to adopt and incorporate by reference those published by the
state roll call vote I just can't second I have to go through my other job too
don't I councilmember Silva aye mayor Haskew aye councilmember Francois aye
Councilmember Wilk? I. And Mayor Pro Tem Darling? I. So I will go ahead wave reading and introduce
an ordinance amending the municipal code to implement objective development standards
for residential and mixed use developments, the updated design review process including
the revised role of the DRC and the community development director and other internal consistency
minor changes and I assume this is where we reference the addendum? Yeah. Claire can you
go to the mic.
So the errata that the council have in the addendum,
they apply to the ordinance.
So we-
They apply to the ordinance, yeah.
Yeah, so we would be incorporating that in.
And then, is that the entirety of your motion?
I was gonna try for adding something directing staff
to go back and look at the SB9 window issue.
Is that- So we can do it that way.
Claire, are you and,
Are you and Jeanine ready to read something into the record?
Or do you think we need to bring that back?
So it will pertain actually to the standards
and the ordinance.
So I think that-
Is it gonna change the ordinance or the rezzo?
Which one?
The rezzo, we can bring it back then.
That would be best.
We can bring it back on the rezzo.
So if the motion would include directing us
to bring back the potentially allowing
for the flexibility of energy efficient windows
on SB nine units, we can bring that back as a resolution
when we adopt the ordinance.
That.
Second.
Kevin, did you get the vote from you?
No, but the three former planning commissioners
all made their motions.
Okay, all right.
Well, you could have had a second nine.
Okay, may I have a roll call vote?
Absolutely.
Mayor Pro Tem Darling.
Aye.
Council member Francois.
Aye.
Council Member Silva?
Aye.
Council Member Wolk?
Aye.
And Mayor Haskim?
Aye.
That being the case, I'm clarifying that there is no further need for this session and we
will adjourn and meet again at 6.