Good evening and welcome to the June 13th, 2024 meeting of the Walling Creek Planning Commission.
Secretary, will you please take the roll?
Commissioner Kwok?
Present.
Commissioner Ward is absent.
Commissioner Klopp?
Present.
Sorry.
Commissioner Reiser?
Here.
Commissioner Natting?
Here.
Vice Chair Anderson?
Here.
Chair Strongman?
Here.
Thank you.
And moving on to the consent calendar.
the consent calendar of the adoption of the minutes of May 9th, 2024. Is there any member
of the commission who would like to either pull it to discuss or make a motion to accept it?
Move to approve the minutes. Second. And will the secretary please take the roll again?
Commissioner Kwok? Yes. Commissioner Ward is absent. Commissioner Klopp? Yes.
Commissioner Reiser? Yes. Commissioner Naiting? Yes. Vice Chair Anderson? Yes.
chair strongman yes motion passes thank you
moving on to public communications this is the portion of our meeting which is
open to the public to make any comment that
is not on the agenda and we will if you
would like to make a comment to the commission that is not on the agenda
you're welcome to approach the speaker's podium right now to do so
seeing none moving in that direction we will close public communications and
move on to our hearings. Our first hearing is the Shadelands secure space
Cali crafts application for an extension and would the staff give a
presentation please? Oh excuse me has there been any ex parte ex parte
communications with the on this project? Seeing none thank you.
Continuing, I'm sorry.
Good evening commissioners.
Brittany Lenore, Associate Planner
with the Community Development Department.
And tonight I'll be presenting an extension request
for the Shadeland Secure Space Cali Craft Project
that was approved by Planning Commission last year.
And so the project included demolition
of the existing buildings onsite and redevelopment
with one three-story self-storage facility,
one one-story office building,
and a two-story micro brewery.
The site also include development of a dog park,
a community garden, and during the construction phase,
there is a temporary Cali Craft brewery layout
so that it can stay operating
while the site's under construction.
So all of that required a design review,
conditional use permit, minor use permit,
and a tree removal permit.
And so it went through the process
with Design Review Commission as a study session.
So they provided review of the sign regulations
and a preliminary design review.
It then went to Planning Commission twice.
The first time, there was some discussion
from the neighbors regarding noise.
And so at the second hearing,
the mitigated negative declaration that was prepared
included a section about operational noise to address that.
The Planning Commission then decided
to certify the negative declaration
and approve the conditional use permits
for the storage and microbrewery uses,
as well as the minor use permit for the offsite parking
and the tree removal permits.
So then it went to design review for final design review.
And it just recently, in May of 2024 of this year,
went to an ad hoc design review commission meeting
for their landscape details.
So the applicant is actively working on the project.
So in regards to CEQA, there has been no changes that's been made to the project and there's
no new or additional information.
So the mitigated negative declaration that planning commission approved last year was
filed as a notice of determination on June 9th, 2023.
And so in summary, staff does recommend to adopt the draft resolutions extending these
entitlements for two years and that would be valid through June of 2026.
And so I'm available for any questions or comments and the applicant team representatives
are as well.
Thank you for your presentation.
Would anybody of the commissioners like to ask questions of staff?
Mr. Anderson.
I was just curious, the original permits were given for one year with a possible one year
assuming that it thought it would be done in a year or perhaps two.
It's been a year, and now they ask for a two-year extension.
You're recommending a two-year extension.
Yes.
What has changed?
So, the two-year extension is just based off the scope.
There is two phases, and so permitting has been a little juggling, trying to get that
going.
And so, we just feel it's appropriate to ask for a two-year extension, so we don't have
to come back next year in case that happens.
And mind you, the extension will not be necessary
once they get building permits issued.
They just have not done that yet.
Okay, thanks.
Any other questions, staff?
Seeing none, we will now open it up.
Thank you for your presentation.
Thank you.
Open it up to public comments on this project.
If anyone from the audience would like to make a comment
on it and includes the actual applicant,
they're welcome to come forward
and do so at this point in time.
Seeing nobody rushing to the podium,
we will close public comments
and bring it back to the commission
for either comments, questions, or a motion.
Question possibly a motion.
These are three CUPs, do we do them separately?
Do we recommend extending them separately?
Sorry, you should do separate motions
to adopt each of the resolutions.
OK, so I'll start by making a motion
to extend the PC resolution number 3926, the CUP,
for storage use.
I so move.
Please take the roll.
Commissioner Kwok.
Yes.
Commissioner Ward is absent.
Commissioner Klop.
Yes.
Commissioner Reiser.
Yes.
Commissioner Nating.
Yes.
Vice Chair Anderson.
Yes.
Chair Strongman.
Yes.
Motion passes.
Thank you.
Moving on, motion to extend PC resolution number 3929
and CUP for the micro brewery use
and MUP for offsite parking.
And I so move.
Second.
Again, please take the roll.
Commissioner Kwok?
Yes.
Commissioner Ward is absent.
Commissioner Kwok?
Yes.
Commissioner Reiser?
Yes.
Commissioner Nating?
Yes.
Vice Chair Anderson?
Yes.
Chair Strongman?
Yes.
Motion passes.
Thank you.
We'll make it a hat trick.
I move to approve the resolution to extend PC,
the resolution number 3930 for the tree removal
and I so move.
Second.
And the roll again.
Commissioner Kwok?
Yes.
Commissioner Ward is absent.
Commissioner Kwok?
Yes.
Commissioner Reiser?
Yes.
Commissioner Nating?
Yes.
Vice Chair Anderson?
Yes.
Chair Strongman?
Yes.
Motion passes.
Thank you.
And we're all looking forward to this project being completed.
Yes.
Moving on to 4B, the ordinance implementing zoning updates
for emergency shelters for the unhoused low barrier
navigation centers and transitional
and supportive housing.
Good evening.
Good evening.
Hello, it's nice to see you again.
Before we get started.
Oh, sorry.
Sorry.
Any ex parte communications or other comments?
Hi, I am the board chair for Trinity Center
and given that we operate an emergency shelter
on behalf of the city,
I'm going to recuse myself from this item.
So have fun.
Thank you.
Anybody else for communications or comments?
Thank you.
We'll go on with the presentation.
Okay, good evening.
My name is Aaron Sage, principal planner
with the community development department.
And I'll be presenting this item to you tonight.
As the chair mentioned,
this is related to zoning updates
for emergency shelters for the unhoused,
low barrier navigation centers and transitional and supportive housing.
And these four uses are sometimes collectively referred to as special needs housing types
because they address a need that is not frequently or easily addressed by sort of non-special
typical housing products that you find in the marketplace.
So I want to start by kind of giving some policy guidance that we have from the housing
element.
one of the main reasons we're here tonight is that we've committed in our housing element
in program H4C that we will quote, review and update the zoning ordinance and related
policies pertaining to emergency shelters, low barrier navigation centers.
You'll sometimes see the acronym LBNCs on some of the slides, transitional and supportive
housing and group care facilities to conform to state requirements.
As noted in the staff report, group care facilities is being more specifically addressed, is more
specifically addressed by several other housing element programs which have a
later time frame. So we are not addressing those with tonight's agenda
item. These are a few of the specific items that are listed in the program. We
need to amend the definitions for these uses, not all of them but but several of
them, to align with state law. We need to allow emergency shelters, navigation
centers, and supportive housing by right in the zones that are specified by state
law, and we'll get into those details. We need to craft objective standards
for shelters, and we need to remove the parking requirement that we currently
have for emergency shelter residents. So the next few slides will focus on
emergency shelters. So first off, just to kind of frame under state law how this
use is defined, the key components in the state definition are that it's housing
for homeless persons, that it has minimal support services,
it has a six month occupancy limit,
and there can be no denial of shelter to a person
due to their inability to pay.
State law requires several important things for this use.
First of all, each local government
must identify at least one zone which
allows and is suitable for residential uses where
emergency shelters are allowed by right. Next, an agency is allowed to adopt
standards, not required, but allowed to adopt standards for emergency shelters.
However, those standards, if adopted, must be objective and they must encourage and
facilitate emergency shelters. And later on I'll show you the seven or eight
specific standards that the state allows. Finally there's a specification that
parking cannot be required for residents. It can be required for employees of the
shelter but not residents. So this map shows where emergency shelters are
currently allowed in Walnut Creek. The pink is where they're not allowed so you
can focus on the other colors. The green is the ASCM district automobile sales
and service custom manufacturing and in that zone we allow the use by right but
it has to be located above the ground floor it's not permitted on the ground
floor and that essentially conflicts with state law because that's a
significant constraint to shelters located in that district because there
are very few multi-story buildings in that district and it's very difficult
for a shelter to be built it obviously costs more money to build a new
multi-story building and then to manage a ground floor space for another use.
The other use, other than ASCM where shelters are allowed by right is in the
central retail district and that's only if it's located more than 500 feet from
a residential zone and so to see that you it's very hard to see so this slide
here we zoom in on on the eight or nine parcels in the CR zone that are more
than 500 feet from any residential zone and therefore those nine parcels could
accommodate an emergency shelter by right. The Golden Rod areas are other
zones that allow this use with a conditional use permit or in the case of
the central retail that are less than 500 feet from a residential zone and
that also triggers a conditional use permit. We'll come back to this to that
use when we talk about the standards, but let's talk about low barrier navigation
centers. So the definition of this, and this is essentially a subtype of
emergency shelters, it's a more specific definition or specific type of shelter,
but it's defined in state law as having a housing first approach, being
service enriched as opposed to minimal support services that we saw in the
other use, having case managers that connect residents to the services that
that they need to eventually move into permanent housing,
such as finding jobs, building life skills, et cetera.
And then finally, it has this component
to reduce some things that are common barriers to people
being willing or able to enter into a shelter.
And that includes having a partner, having a pet,
having certain possessions, or having a need for privacy,
such as, you know, a screen or a partition in between beds.
So these requirements and that definition
come from a recent state bill from 2018,
which basically said if a use meets that definition,
it is then allowed by right in mixed use zones
and non-residential zones that permit multifamily uses.
And I'll show you a map that indicates
where those are located.
but in order to be allowed by right,
not only would a use have to meet that definition,
but it would also have to have services
that connect people to permanent housing,
and it would have to have a coordinated entry system,
and there's some other items that are also required.
So if those requirements are met,
then these are the areas of the city
where under current state law,
this use is allowed by right,
and what we're doing as part of this amendment
is simply updating our zoning to match
what is already required under state law.
So the uses, those uses are listed on the left there,
but it's essentially most of our zoning districts,
some of the exceptions would be the business park district,
the single family and duplex zones,
the community facilities zone.
Basically, those are the handful of zones
that don't fall within the language in state law,
but all the rest do.
and those are shown in the green.
Okay, moving on to objective standards for shelters.
Now this would apply to emergency shelters
and low barrier navigation centers,
which as I mentioned are a subtype of emergency shelters.
So on the left are listed the different types of standards
that we are allowed to adopt under state law.
The first one is the maximum number of beds or persons.
We're proposing 50 beds.
That's based on the maximum capacity
of our current winter shelter.
That standard and the other ones that are marked with an asterisk could be modified
through a discretionary permit process, through a conditional use permit or in a couple
of other cases a lesser level of permit.
Parking state law, as I indicated, does not allow us
to have a residential parking requirement for shelters.
So that's proposed to be deleted.
We already have a standard of one per employee, which is okay under state law as long
as we add the caveat that if there happens to be another use allowed in the same zone
that would have a lower employee parking requirement, then that lower requirement is what will apply.
There are no standards of less than one per employee but sometimes if you have a use that's
regulated where the parking is required based on floor area, that could in theory result
in a lower requirement if it's a use that is only employees and doesn't have customers.
Waiting and intake area proposing a standard of 10 square feet per bed but not less than
100 square feet and it must be indoors.
That could be modified with a CUP.
On-site management and security is required at all times when the facility is open to
clients or residents but also for management that needs to be provided starting one hour
before the shelter opens until one hour after it closes to help with transition of clients
in and out of the facility.
Proximity to other shelters.
This is basically a minimum distance requirement between shelters to prevent them from being
over concentrated in any particular area.
This is allowed under state law but it has to be no more than 300 feet.
When you look at other cities standards for this 300 feet is pretty much always what's adopted
That's what we've included. But again with the flexibility to reduce that
with a CUP
Length of stay is allowed as well. However, that's already covered by the state definition. So we're not
proposing anything beyond just adopting the state definition for emergency shelters and
And then lighting is also allowed.
In this case, we are basically cross-referencing
to the recent objective lighting standards
that you recommended and counsel adopted in May.
Those include things like maximum pole height,
maximum intensity of light,
near residential minimum intensity otherwise.
And then there's also a reference
to any further objective design standards,
such as the ones that are gonna be coming up
through the non-residential design review standards
and guidelines book later this year.
So that's standards for shelters.
We'll move on now to transitional housing.
So this is basically defined under state law
as a rental housing development that
has a maximum of six months of assistance provided.
And at that point, the resident would
need to move out and free up that spot for someone else.
The whole point of this use is basically to be kind of,
as the name implies, a transition between being homeless
and being in permanent housing.
The key thing to recognize with this use under state law
is that it is not meant to be treated,
it is not considered as a separate type of use
than whatever type of residential building it's occupying.
You can have a single family dwelling
that's a transitional home.
You can have a multi-family apartment building
that's a transitional home.
You can have a residential care facility
that's a transitional housing facility as well.
And state law says basically you can only
apply the same restrictions that you're
applying to dwellings of the same type in the same zone.
So what we're doing in our amendments
is basically listing this use in all of the districts
that have residential uses.
And we're putting in a note saying it's not treated as a separate use, it's just subject
to the same restrictions as the underlying use within the underlying use classification
within which it is operating.
Currently in our code there are two zones, the R zone and the SFH PD 1 zone where transitional
housing is listed, but then it says it's only allowed if it's operating as a residential
care home, which is six or fewer residents and it's a facility licensed by the state.
That does not conform to state law.
Transitional housing has to be permitted.
Whatever uses you allow in a zone, it has to be permitted to be transitional housing,
subject to those same restrictions.
So those restrictions are proposed to be removed.
And then we're also removing the specific parking standard that we have for transitional
housing because, as I mentioned, we don't get to apply a unique standard to this use.
We just refer to the standards of the underlying use.
So we've added a note in the parking table to do that.
All right, moving on now to supportive housing.
State law defines this as housing that has no limit on the stay, so as distinguished
from transitional housing or emergency shelters, that is occupied by a target population and
And there's a definition of that that basically has to do with services being targeted toward
a specific need group.
And then, importantly, this use has to have either on-site or off-site services that are
connecting people to the services and the life skills that they need to be able to find
permanent housing and to stay in permanent housing.
Although supportive housing, again, has no limit.
in theory that could be permanent housing as well. State law requires very
similar to transitional housing. That's actually the same requirement that we
can only apply the same restrictions that apply to other dwellings of the
same type in the same zone. So again, supportive housing, we're not treating
that as a different type of use. We're basically just saying, you know, if it's
a single-family supportive housing development, we apply all the same rules
as a single family, and then same thing for multifamily
or whatever category it happens to fall into.
Now, there is a bill from 2018 called AB 2162,
which you may have heard of.
The Hope Village Project at Grace Presbyterian Church
utilized this law.
But what this law does is it basically
says we're going to specify some additional requirements
for supportive housing.
And if a use meets those requirements,
then it's allowed by right in multifamily and mixed use
zones, meaning zones that have both multifamily and mixed use
in the same zone.
And some of those requirements are listed here.
The project would have to be 100% of the units
would have to be dedicated for lower income households,
except for the manager's unit.
At least 25% of the units would have to be allocated or reserved
for the target population.
There has to be a services plan that conforms
to a set of requirements of state law.
There has to be a minimum amount of floor area onsite
for supportive services.
And all units have to have a bathroom and a kitchen.
So we're proposing the same amendment
as transitional housing.
We're gonna be listing this use in all the zones
that allow residential uses with the note
that we treat it the same as the underlying use.
And then we're gonna have a second note
for supportive housing,
referring to the provisions of AB 2162
and specifying that under those circumstances,
the use is allowed by right.
We'll add the use to the parking table,
again with the note that we refer to the underlying use
for the parking standard.
And then this map shows where,
which zones would require the by right approval
for projects falling under AB 2162.
very similar to the Low Barrier Navigation Center.
Actually, it's the same zones,
just a couple of caveats on the M district
and the MHD district.
The caveats are on the low barrier,
and in this case, there would be no caveats.
Okay, wanted to wrap up with a few slides,
kind of taking it back to the background
and the kind of how we got here from a policy standpoint.
Just wanted to highlight some of City Council's priorities
that relate to this agenda item.
Under diversity, equity, and inclusion,
the Council would like to keep building on the progress
made to further establish Walnut Creek
as an inclusive community that welcomes diversity.
I think it's obvious that addressing these special needs
housing types furthers our progress
on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
And then under the heading of Public Safety
and social wellness, ensure Walnut Creek is a safe community
through more innovative and effective responses
to homelessness and mental health challenges.
And then going back to the housing element,
one goal that relates is H3,
provide a range of housing opportunities
for Walnut Creek residents to encourage economic mobility,
particularly residents with special needs,
including persons experiencing homelessness
and extremely low income residents,
both of which would benefit greatly
from these types of uses.
And under that goal, we have policy H31
to prioritize the development of housing
that meets the needs of special needs groups.
We also have goal H4, minimize the impact
of potential governmental constraints,
such as prohibitions on uses or the prohibition
on the ground floor in the ASCM that I mentioned.
But minimize the impact of those constraints
by under policy H4-1 amending the zoning ordinance
to comply with current state laws
regarding emergency shelters, transitional
and supportive housing, group care facilities
and other housing types.
And here's the staff recommendation,
asking you to consider the proposed zoning ordinance
amendments to update provisions for the following uses
to conform to state requirements.
I won't read those since I've named those
several times tonight.
And of course, adopt a resolution recommending
that the City Council adopt their proposed amendments.
Thanks for your attention and happy to take any questions.
Thank you for a very detailed presentation.
Do we have questions of staff?
One, go Mr. Anderson.
Thank you.
On the emergency shelter districts,
you mentioned the one at Newell and Main Street there,
but the larger one, still a fairly modest amount,
is in the, yes, there.
the green section there in between Broadway and Main Street. Since a large
significant fraction of that is going to be developed by the Toyota group
but they're not quite sure how it's going to develop yet. Have you done any
contact or coordination with them as far as perhaps you know including an
emergency shelter and air plans. We have not contacted Toyota about this
specific ordinance change. I suspect that they will have a very specific
development proposal for their property. Any other questions? Okay therefore, thank
you. We will move it on to public hearing. As any member of the public would like to
speak on this subject please approach the podium thank you hello good evening
chair strongman vice chair Anderson continuing and new members of the
Planning Commission it's always a pleasure to be with you my name is
Leslie Gleason and I serve as executive director of Trinity Center Walnut Creek
and because we are an emergency shelter provider and we provide case management
and supportive services to supportive housing right here in Walnut Creek we are
very supportive of moving forward and their staff's recommendation to move this forward
for council action. We have been appreciative of the opportunity to give feedback based
on our experience as a shelter operator on the proposed ordinance and we are 100% behind
everything that moves us forward with the housing element that everybody works so hard
on. So beginning to take the concrete steps towards that is a wonderful thing. Not only
But it really will open up opportunities and options going forward for us to add to the
housing stock that we need to meet the needs for all of us in our community.
So we encourage and request that you move this forward to City Council.
Thank you, as always, for your time and support for our programs, and thank you very much.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission for a
discussion and or recommendation. I just thought of a quick question if I made
it might be directed to staff here do we and it was when Leslie got up I thought
just crossed my mind is there an opportunity for an intake to happen does
intake have to happen on one site on the actual site so you don't see like one
intake center that is responsible for other satellite type facilities. I'm not
not aware of any requirement in state law that the intake has to be done at the same
location.
Yeah, I don't think there is a requirement.
I think it just depends on the configuration of the facilities and if that's their operational
model then that can take place provided they just comply with the other objective standards.
Okay.
Anyone else?
How about a recommendation?
I'll move the resolution number X, X, X, X, X, expect it's got a different official
number that proposed in the packet for the zoning ordinance amendment regulations for
emergency shelters, low-bearing navigation centers, transitional housing and supportive
housing consistent with state law and the 2023-2031 housing element.
And I'll just clarify for the commission that your recommendation is on the draft ordinance and the errata sheet that's in your packet
I'll second it
Please take the roll, please. Thank you. Commissioner quark
Yes
Commissioner Ward is absent. Commissioner clop has recused herself
Commissioner Reiser, yes
Commissioner Nating. Yes
Commissioner Anderson. Yes
Chair strong win. Yes motion passes. Thank you. And
Can we take a one minute break while we bring our we were commissioner back? Yes, please
The seven
Parking ordinance update with first half good evening commissioners
My name is Henry rude
I'm an assistant planner with the traffic engineering division of Public Works and I also collaborated with the community development project
Excuse me the community development department on this parking ordinance update
The major components are a revision to our parking minimums for multifamily residential parking structures
several provisions to comply with state laws
Some adjustments to our bicycle parking regulations new provisions for transportation demand management
Building on what we have in our rethinking mobility plan and some other technical edits to clean things up in the zoning ordinance
So for a bit of background our housing element identifies limited supply and high cost of land as a major constraint on new housing
Part of that high cost is parking
We are committed per our housing element to review and modify development standards that can pose a constraint to development
This not only includes parking implicitly
But it is explicitly noted that we are committed to amending the zoning ordinance to reduce parking minimum requirements per our housing element
We conducted a parking study last year that was recently completed looking at 11 large multifamily
complexes to try to observe the real demand for parking for these residential structures and
see how we can adjust our standards to better match that demand. In
every single case we observed substantially lower demand out in the real world than our current regulations would require.
So accordingly the study recommended that our parking minimums be lowered
This would allow developers more flexibility to build less or the same amount of parking as before
It opens up options to potentially lower the cost of housing
There are also provisions in the update to better address and comply with AB 894
This requires local agencies to allow shared parking agreements
So we would be removing the requirement for minor use permits on these agreements
We're also updating to comply with a be
which prohibits agencies from requiring additional parking for single family revisions.
Essentially, if you're changing your house within certain scope, we can no longer require you to add extra parking.
Finally, the big one, AB 2097. This is a state law that requires agencies to set parking minimums to zero for both
commercial and residential within a half-mile of major transit facilities. In Walnut Creek,
this is Walnut Creek Bart and Pleasant Hill Bart.
You can see on the map what areas are within
that half mile radius of each.
This is not universal.
The agency can submit written findings
that not enforcing parking requirements
would have a substantially negative impact on housing
for some, but not all projects.
They're detailed in the staff report,
but essentially under most circumstances,
the bottom line is that in these areas,
the parking minimums will be zero per state law.
Part of this is a knock on effect.
Our current bicycle parking requirements are derived
from our automobile parking.
So that would mean that in those areas as written,
the bicycle parking requirements would be zero.
So as part of this update,
we are also updating the bicycle parking standards
to better comply with best practices
and stand on their own
instead of being related to automobile.
This lets us adjust the requirements of both
without it affecting the other.
And we're also including ratios for long-term versus
short-term parking based on land use.
If you think about like an office building for employees,
they require more, you know, long-term bicycle parking.
Well, retail, it's more in and out, it's more short-term.
We're also adding new provisions
for transportation demand management.
This is building on the existing line of policy
and our rethinking mobility plan.
And it relates also to AB 2097.
So essentially, this regulates,
requires developers to submit
a transportation demand management plan.
If they are planning to provide less parking,
it allows us to see how they intend
to limit the impact of that reduced parking.
Generally, this is through, you know,
measures to encourage mode shift at their facilities,
you know, transit, ride sharing.
This would refer to an external policy document
that can be updated more regularly,
somewhat similar to the way the objective design standards
are an external document that's referred to in the code.
Some other more minor updates
were replacing community development director
is going to be put everywhere instead of planning manager.
We're also treating medical and general offices
consistently between each other
and some additional updates
to the community commercial parking ratios
and covered parking provisions.
So this is a study session.
no formal action will be taken at this meeting.
In two weeks, I will be bringing a draft ordinance
for you to recommend an action to counsel on.
And then we are currently scheduled for a July 23rd
for city council to review the ordinance.
This will keep us on track to meet our commitments
in the housing element,
which require these amended minimums by fall of 2024.
So with that, I'll open it up to questions.
I'm happy to help clarify anything you'd like.
Thank you for your presentation and I guess
we'll just start out with who would like to jump in.
Hi, thank you so much for this great information.
I did have one question, the company,
I think it was LEAP, just, oh, LEAP, LEAP, LEAP?
Yes, so LEAP is the, it's a housing grant.
The parking study was funded as part
of a much larger housing grant.
Oh, okay.
It's local early action planning.
Yeah, here we go. Yeah. That's from the state. And they described their process
of going in and counting how many cars were parked at midnight, several dates
they had, and then they described a process of sort of public input in what
the changes were that they were recommending, but that was sort of like
just as a flyby mentioned. Do you know who they met with and how that all went?
Yes, so I was present at both stakeholder meetings that we held with our
are a consultant that was used for the parking study fair and peers.
We had one meeting initially to solicit input from developers, community members, stakeholders
on what parking means to them, how minimums can affect things.
And then after the study was completed and we had this data showing the observed demand,
we had another meeting to discuss with these stakeholders the prospect of lowering minimums.
And in both cases, the stakeholders were supportive.
They thought it was reasonable.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Anderson.
I get the impression that there was a discussion of that the levels in the North downtown
specific plan were lower than in other areas and perhaps more consistent with what the
study indicated was necessary.
It seemed like it was sort of aimed
at sort of the average occupancy.
But I noticed, if you look at it,
I'm looking at table two here,
but the occupied spaces per occupied unit,
they range from 0.88,
I assume these are all market apartment buildings,
from 0.88 per unit to 1.33.
which is a fair range.
If you look at the total spaces per unit,
okay, that's a deoccupied space we're concerned with.
I'm just wondering that, you know, is there,
if we just go for an average or, you know,
as what's really needed,
there seems to be some variation,
perhaps in the particular clientele they have
or, you know, how close they are
to different kinds of work situations.
Didn't seem like there was an accounting
for some kind of factor of safety.
So that, you know, an apartment building
that had, you know, more people working farther away
just because of the type of people they attracted,
you know, found themselves just
with an unworkable minimum amount of parking.
Can you just what whether there's some consideration of not going just for the average, but in
fact for some average plus some safety factor in there?
Yeah, so two points relating to that.
First of all, those structures where the average amount was the rate was higher than one per
had a larger amount of multiple bedroom units.
So that's why we compared the occupied bedroom in addition to per occupied unit.
So it's easy to imagine, you know, if you've got a lot of four bedroom apartment buildings,
they're going to need more parking.
So of course conditions will always vary.
There will always be, you know, specific localized concerns and developers are empowered to build
to the demand that they expect based on their specific policies.
With their BART proximate, the transportation demand management plan will also help identify
the specific demand on parking that they expect.
But I want to be clear, this is not imposing any additional constraints on development.
If they expect a higher demand on parking, they are still welcome to build parking to
match that expected demand.
This just lowers the minimum that they have to provide no matter what.
I also was curious about, and maybe you answered that as well, but the half mile radius around
the transit stations.
Where parking has already been provided for existing buildings.
Do the requirements for parking that have been imposed on them in the past, are those
essentially grandfathered in those requirements will continue to be the requirements for those
of buildings. It can't turn the garages into more units. So this is about the
development standards. So if someone is coming in new, you know, they will not
have to build to the old standards. If you've got an existing building and say
ownership changes and they want to convert existing parking and it would
have a substantial negative impact, that would potentially be a case where the
city submits written findings to show that enforcing parking minimums is
is necessary to avoid that negative impact.
And that's all for the state law.
Okay, thank you.
Anyone else right now?
Good.
So thank you for sharing this information with us
and explaining it to us, it was very informative.
Thank you.
I was curious to know how the bicycle parking standards
would stand alone,
now that we are considering the parking minimums
for car travel and people that use cars.
And so as I was reading through the bicycle standards,
One of the ones that I came across was the placement
of those bicycle parking.
And so in those instances where the bicycle parking
would be on the, it says like if it was placed
on the public right away, one of the thoughts
that came to my mind is what if we have like
the ADA compliance requirements where you have to have
a minimum width on the sidewalk?
If, I'm hoping that the placement of the bicycle racks
would take that into consideration as well?
Yes, of course.
So ADA compliance is enforced at all building permits
that we review.
That takes precedence if there's a conflict,
but under most circumstances, we can work,
staff, building staff, and planning and transportation staff
can ensure that we have a recommendation
that complies with all requirements.
The placement also in the downtown area,
we've added an in lieu provision
where publicly provided bike racks
can count towards that requirement,
which helps avoid issues with things being
cramped downtown, gives more leeway.
Go for it.
I liked the Baron Peir's letter.
I thought it was a good place to start.
I wanted to ask about tandem parking and parking stackers,
which are pretty prevalent in San Francisco
where parking is difficult.
That sometimes actually helps.
capture area back, that's kind of that unusable area,
while still being able to provide parking,
but maybe smaller vehicles.
Did you guys plan or think about anything to that effect
to make the code easier for builders to use?
So we did look into that, and it turns out
our current parking regulations do not call out
tandem parking separately, so it already counts
towards that requirement in the same way.
It's not penalized.
So you can use it.
Yes, that's true right now.
Right now, without anything.
And it would not change with this either.
And then what about, I did notice
their other recommendation was also about the van pool.
And it's funny because when I drive in the Broadway Plaza
parking lot, the various floors I see,
it's van pool or E.B.
Was that also?
Yeah, so the van pool is part of the larger
transportation demand management.
So that's basically one option of many
that can be included in a transportation demand management
plan to show, essentially, if you wanna build less parking
to show that you have other avenues
that will pick up the slack there
and ensure that the public infrastructure
is not overburdened.
Another question?
Comment, I guess, more.
The Pleasant old BART station, within a half a mile,
most of that is not within the city.
Is the county implementing a similar program?
Yes, so the county is also required by state law.
I'm not sure on their progress to update the ordinance,
but the way state law works with local law
is that even before you update things to match,
it is still considered in effect and it overrides
whatever is written in the county code.
So that is also true in Walnut Creek right now.
We're just bringing things into consistency.
Okay, thank you.
And a question about the shared parking occurred to me that is,
okay, somebody has a shared parking agreement with a property next door.
And for some reason, by choice or natural disaster,
that parking is no longer available.
What happens to that agreement?
I don't believe anything related to that would change.
But I would have to look into our current policy for what happens for that.
I'm not sure.
And we can look into that
and it probably will be contractual provision
about what happens if it terminates or revert back
to the party that had the agreement
or something similar.
Okay, thank you.
And one further question.
You made a comment about somewhere in your extensive
documentation about possibly imposing a maximum
allowed parking for property.
Yes, so that was part of the parking study it is not anything that is happening right now
It's something where we can look at it in the future and see where it might have an effect
We currently have some parking maximums at our North downtown specific plan
You know we can we will look at the issue and see you know
How they're affecting things and if it would be beneficial elsewhere or if it would not but right now
We are only adjusting the minimum. So it's only giving developers more options. It's not constraining them at all
Okay, thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Do you have the information you want from us?
Yes, thank you. So there's no motion tonight, so I have your feedback.
The commission may wish to open up the here, the study session to the public.
Okay, I will do that at this point in time. Is any member of the public here would like to come
forward to make a comment on this study session? Seeing three staff members out there, I'm not sure.
Thank you. We'll close public the hearing right now. Thank you.
And just to clarify that this is just a study session.
So no vote is needed. Thank you.
And moving on to the one item item for D.
Would the secretary please make a comment on that?
Yes. So this item has been further continued to July 25th, 2024.
So and the reason that it's on the agenda is that to avoid
re-noticing the public hearing, we'd recommend the Commission
open the public hearing, but continue the item to that time.
OK, therefore, I will open the public hearing
on the Plaza MSP Design Review Appeal, Application Appeal.
Seeing no one rush forward to the podium.
So the public hearing should remain open and then we'll just continue to the public hearing will remain open until
July 25th, 2024
Moving on to item five commission considerations. Do we have any commission considerations?
Seeing none
Item six commission member our staff reports on announcements
No reports by staff tonight. Thank you. Thank you
And we will now therefore adjourn at item 7. Thank you for all coming. Have a good evening.