Okay, thank you everyone.
Welcome to the June 19th Design Review Commission Meeting.
For those of you, if this is your first meeting, welcome.
We're happy to have people engaged in our projects that we're talking about.
But we also want to remind everyone that for each agenda item, there will be an opportunity
for the public to comment.
So if you'd like to speak on an item this evening, please hold your comments until the
the commission considers that particular item.
We will also have a section on the agenda
that's titled public communications.
This is when there is an opportunity for public comments
on items that are not on the agenda.
And any comments during the public communication
should not relate to an item
that it is not on the agenda this evening.
If you desire to make a public comment,
please complete a speaker identification card
or in the back when you walk in the door.
Wait your turn and when you approach the lectern,
please state your name and city of residence for the record
and we will have two minutes to speak.
We'll be monitoring that
because we wanna make sure everybody gets a chance to speak
and please keep in mind this is a city business meeting.
So we've adopted rules of decorum
to ensure that the meetings run effectively and smoothly
and that all members of the public have a full fair
and equal opportunity to be heard.
So the commission rules and procedures policy outlines
this decorum if anyone would like to read it.
But all remarks should be addressed to the commission.
please do not use threatening, profane, or abusive language
which disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes
the orderly conduct of the commission meeting.
So a reminder, each speaker will have two minutes
to make your remarks.
Written comments submitted and received
up to two hours before the meeting
have been posted to the website for public review
and are included in the meeting record,
but will not be separately read into the record.
And we did receive emails
with several public comments as well.
So thank you all for your respect in our meeting tonight.
So we're gonna kick it off with our welcome and roll call.
Thank you, Commissioner Weingarten?
Present.
Commissioner Killian?
Here.
Commissioner Valia?
Here.
Vice Chair Newsom?
Here.
Chair Case?
Here.
We have a quorum.
Thank you.
So at this point we'll go through our consent calendar.
So an item can be placed on the consent calendar
by the secretary or an expected to be routinely approved
without discussion or debate.
So we are often moving your extensions
to the consent calendar,
but tonight we're gonna approach them as an item
because we don't wanna move things to consent calendar
like that anymore in case they need to be reopened.
So those of you that were used to that,
we're not supposed to do that.
But ideally, since we have a nice showing
and a lot of public comment potential,
tonight ideally we can move those quickly
when we reach those, right?
Okay, so at that, we'll move to public communication.
So this is for any items not on the agenda.
Do we have to vote on the adoption of the minutes?
Did I skip that?
Ah, thank you, thank you.
Yes, so for consent calendar,
we do need to vote on the adoption of the meeting minutes
from April 17th, 2024.
I move to adopt the minutes from April 17th, 2024.
second all right so we have a motion and a second okay commissioner Newsom yes
mr. Weingarten yes mr. Valia yes mr. Killian yes mr. Case yes motion
passes thank you all right so at this point we'll move into public
communication so this is for items not on the agenda this evening found two I
I don't see anyone for that, so we'll move to item four, public hearings.
So before we move into these specific projects, I would like to ask the Commissioners if anyone's
had any ex parte communications with any of the project members?
Nope.
Nope.
Nope.
Nope.
No.
Great.
Okay.
Thank you.
So project A, Shadeland Secure Space Cali-Craft two year extension, are there any questions
or comments from our commissioner?
No.
Does anyone need to see a staff presentation?
Okay.
Would anyone like to make a motion
to approve the two-year extension?
No, public comment, sorry.
Sorry.
I'm like trying so quickly to get to the...
Is there anyone who has a public comment on this item?
Closing that.
Final words before I suggest the motion?
Would someone make a motion to approve the two-year extension?
I move to extend the project of the two-year extension.
I second that.
Okay, we'll take a vote.
Commissioner Newsom?
Yes.
Commissioner Velia?
Yes.
Commissioner Killian?
Yes.
Commissioner Weingarten?
Yes.
Chair Case?
Yes.
Five ayes, motion passes.
Fantastic, we'll move to item B,
The residence is at Abigail Place, also seeking a two-year extension.
Any questions from the commission or a need for a staff presentation?
Seeing none.
OK, any comments from the public?
Got it that time.
All right.
So please bring your speaker card up to the podium
and then make sure you state your name and your city of residence and you will
have two minutes and there is a little timer so you'll see it go orange when it's
done and then read so I don't have to feel uncomfortable and interrupt you
great thank you thank you good evening Mark Peters from Walnut Creek committee
members good evening our house shares an 80-foot common boundary with the
proposed development begin to the mic thank you okay this is the fifth time I
have spoken before a city committee in opposition to this proposal and I urge
you to reject this extension.
We have significant verifiable acts of malfeasance on the part of the applicant that should disqualify
them from ever continuing this project.
When Caliber made their proposal to you, they noted two dilapidated structures then on the
two acre parcel that would be replaced.
Let me show you what a dilapidated house looks like.
Can you all see this?
Okay.
This isn't an old photo.
I took it on June 1st.
That's 18 days ago.
Coming up to June 1st, Caliber permitted the grass to reach two to three feet in height,
and is this through the actions of a responsible party in an area where grass fires are occurring
every day?
The abject neglect of the property led to people driving by and dumping their junk
in front of the 730 mine are shown here.
On the adjacent property at the 748 mine, someone dumped a broken dishwasher and a lot
of tree trimmings.
Then squatters took to occupying these houses, so Caliber's response, as you'll see, was
was to put plywood sheets on every entry point.
But the crooks still came from my backyard.
I watched two men pry the plywood panel off a rear entry,
load furniture into their truck and then drive off.
And then another time, individuals got
into the rear of that property and heaved junk
over the common fence into our backyard.
I genuinely fear for the safety of my wife and my son.
After I filed multiple municipal code violations
with the city, Caliber finally cleaned up these slots,
but they allowed Filth and Squalor to fester for months.
The committee evaluated the caliber proposal
in September of 2022 and again in April of 2023.
You rejected the proposal both times for very good reasons.
Now you have direct evidence of malfeasance
on behalf of this developer.
Your initial instincts were right.
Your time is up, I apologize.
Tell caliber to take their carnival of disrespect
and destruction out of town.
Thank you. Shut them down.
Do we have any other speakers for this item?
Thank you.
I'm Susan Peters, my husband I think spoke very well
about what we've been experiencing.
And I wanna first let you know that I'm not someone
who doesn't want development in my backyard.
I want sane, sensible development
that considers the quality of life
for our people in our neighborhood.
We've spoken before in front of the committee.
I have a son, an adult son with a disability, who
can't afford to live in Walnut Creek.
So when he comes out of his college program,
we'll have to look in cities outside of Walnut Creek
for affordable housing.
So I believe you are charged with protecting our city
and making sure that greedy developers are not
using laws to justify things that should not be done.
I don't believe that this developer cares at all
about the community.
And I think it is your job to make sure that you retract
and you negotiate with developers
to make sure that they're caring for the adjacent properties
and the neighbors.
This developer has shown no consideration for our neighbors,
has shown no care, even though their website says trust.
Building trust is their game.
It is not.
So I want you to really think carefully
about what you're doing and doing to our neighborhood.
Our safety is in jeopardy.
I would love to see a reasonable plan that had housing for it
that was affordable, which was the purpose of these laws
in the first place, that includes
housing for the disabled.
And those are the questions I have about what
is the city doing for that, because I don't see it happening.
If it is happening, it's not well advertised.
So I ask you again, please reject this proposal that
is totally based on greed.
It will include it will increase tangency,
because nobody's going to want to stay
in a home that has a four foot backyard and a few feet
of a driveway that they can't park their car in.
So you will have more trangency.
You will not have the kinds of things
that we're looking for in our neighborhood.
We have a fantastic neighborhood.
We know everyone in our neighborhood,
which you probably can't say that about many places
in Walnut Creek.
And they're all accepting of my son that has a disability.
These are not people that are saying not in my backyard.
These are people that are saying, care for us.
Pay attention, city of Walnut Creek.
You're here to make sure that we're not just letting greed
We take over our city, and that's what's happening.
So please consider us.
Thank you.
Do we have any other members of the public?
I would like to make a few.
State your name.
Sorry.
I'm sorry.
My name is Max, last time the Range Bar.
And we are at 2350 Assad Drive, which
has the complete boundary with the project
under the discussion today.
So there were two households that have a complete boundary.
So we are exactly falling into the project that's coming up.
On April, actually, it was, you know, on April 19, 2023,
the Walnut Creek Design Committee denied the motion
that this property,
I'm talking about the property on the question,
is sufficiently complete or perfect for the project
to go forward?
And some of the comment the committee made
was that one of them was that this layout was not fine.
And also the density that one was another concern
the committee had.
And also the proximity of the houses next to each other
that create all the issues.
Those are the concerns that you guys had on April 19, 2023.
Subsequently, you guys were ruled out
by the Planning Commission.
And we were on that meeting, and they said,
the design committee doesn't know
what they are talking about.
That was exactly.
Which I thought that would be very disrespectful.
So that was a position that you had then.
So I'm wondering that as of now.
You've reached your two minutes.
That you're talking.
Apologies.
Are you still have the same position as the past?
And if you don't, that position,
are you conflicting yours?
Thank you, appreciate it.
Sorry guys, it takes everything in me
to interrupt you at two minutes, so bear with me.
Do we have any other public comments?
If you could please state your name, we'd appreciate it.
2350 LaSalle Drive.
Everything everyone has said is true and factual,
and it comes from the heart.
We are not nimbis.
We want the best for Walnut Creek.
All of us have chosen to live here because it's a great city.
But we also see what has happened
is that the builders have never once approached us,
have never once given us any communication personally to us.
Most of us have lived here 20 to maybe 45 years.
That's a long commitment.
You know, we're taxpayers, voters,
and we're committed, as I said, to this town.
We really have to pay attention to how this is being built.
This is way too crowded.
This wonderful design committee said so.
Planning commission was terrible, very disrespectful
to all of us, and didn't want to hear anything any of us
had to say, and actually degraded the design committee.
Where I worked, you don't do that to your committees
in public.
You take your problems behind doors, but they did it.
So that was really distasteful when that occurred.
But we really want you to pay, please be respectful.
Also pay attention to this.
This is a serious issue.
This is serious.
Once the digging starts, you can't go backwards.
We have to make sure we do this right.
And that's what we're asking.
Just do it right.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other public comment on this item?
Okay, at this point, I'll ask if the applicant has a response to any of the comments or questions.
Good evening, design review committee. My name is DeAnn Green. I'm with Shay Home, so I'm not with Caliber Ventures.
Shay Home has purchased this project from Caliber Ventures, and I apologize, we just closed on this a couple weeks ago.
So if you have not received anything, I will be sending you guys letters, or if you want to give me your contact so that we can speak with you.
we are an open, communicative development builder.
So if the committee, I mean, that's all I wanted to say today
that we are the new builder.
And if anybody has any questions,
I'd be happy to answer them.
Any questions of the applicant from our commission?
Are you proposing to build it as approved?
Yes, as approved.
That's what we purchased.
And so what's the reason for the extension?
We just purchased the property and the design review.
We need an extra time to process our development permit
is ready to go, but we need to go through the city
and change the name and look at the plans more
and make sure everything's all teed up and ready to go.
Okay, so is the delay partially on the city side?
I mean, in terms of, I mean, that's-
It's a lot of- I don't work for the city.
paper work that we need to go through to transfer the change of ownership and
refile an engineering application and a couple of other stuff.
And with central sand, we have to go through a process with them and we have to
go through a process with the Contra Costa Water Water District as well.
And doing all that paperwork is takes a little bit of time.
And so this the design review is expiring.
So we just want to do getting extensions.
We're hoping to move and do our demo permit
and start cleaning up.
And it was us who cleaned up the site
as soon as we purchased it.
We went and cleaned up the site.
We want to fence it.
We want to get in and demo the houses
that are currently there that are existing right now.
And then while we're doing that,
that's going to take some time.
Then we can work on with the city and processing
and filing all the paperwork we need to do
as the new owners and pay all the fees
and make sure all the plan checks are done correctly.
Through the chair, if I may, add to that,
their site development permit and their building permits,
applications are in and being reviewed.
I believe the site development permit has been?
Technically approved.
Technically approved.
We, our code doesn't allow us to,
our code requires to keep the design review open
until those building permits are issued,
once they're issued.
If they were issued, the building permit was issued,
we wouldn't have to go through this,
but I think it's second round of review.
So, I mean, that's my question maybe to not to you,
but to the city is,
how do we do that better? So, table that.
We found the property for 10 days, I think.
Any other questions of our commission or from our commission?
So we have to decide if we're willing to approve a two-year extension.
I'll make a motion to approve the extension. I'll second it
roll call
Commissioner valilla. Yes, mr. Killian. Yes, mr. Weingarten
May abstain, please
vice chair Newsom
Yes, chair case. Yes
four zero one motion passes
Thank you. We'll be moving on to item C
Which is chick-fil-a restaurant final design review and MSP amendment
Do we have a presentation from staff? I apologize. We can't have comments from the audience. I
Apologize you can't make comments from the audience. Thank you for coming this evening Simmer. Did you have a presentation for us great?
Good evening commissioners. My name is Simmer Gil associate planner with the city
We are here tonight to consider the final design review for Chick-fil-a restaurant that will be located at
2290 Oak Grove Road within the citrus marketplace shopping center
Not working
Thank you apologies for that delay, so I will be moving on to the next light
So here I'd like to pass it over for a little explanation of the purpose of our DRC meeting
Thank you chair case
I'm Claire Lai, assistant city attorney,
and I thought it'd be helpful to provide
just a brief context of the purposes of this meeting
for the commission, and as the commission is aware,
the project previously was before the planning commission
and then later at the city council on appeal
for the conditional use permit and tree removal permits.
Those permits previously were approved,
and so the scope of this meeting is limited
to the final design review component
and the amendment that's proposed
to the Master's Sign Program.
And as you can see here,
the scope of the Commission's review
should only be with respect to those issues
and the findings that are required for the sign review.
And so I'll turn it back to Summer
for the additional information.
Thank you.
And just to quickly orient you with the site,
the shopping center is located
at the corner of Oak Grove and Citrus Avenue,
and it does consist of three parcels
that are developed with commercial uses.
There are 474 existing parking spaces
shared among all users of the center.
The surrounding area does consist of a mix of uses.
There are residential uses to the north
and east of the shopping center.
And just some project information,
the existing Bank of America,
the vacant building on site will be demolished
for the construction of the proposed Chick-fil-A restaurant,
which is 5,240 square feet in size.
It is a dine-in and take-out only concept.
There is no drive-through proposed at this location.
And the project also includes an outdoor seating area
that would be overlooking Citrus Avenue
as shown on this rendering.
New landscaping and building signage is also proposed.
And just to quickly recap the previous approvals,
on March 14th, the Planning Commission
did approve the conditional use permit.
However, within the 10-day appeal period,
the project was appealed.
Then it was scheduled for the city council hearing on May 21st,
where the city council did review the entire project,
however, denied the appeal and did
affirm Planning Commission's decision approving the project,
along with three additional conditions.
So again, I believe Claire touched on this,
but I'll just repeat it.
Planning Commission did review the use of this project.
the site circulation, the parking, the traffic,
the parking demand study, and the VMT analysis
that was presented as part of the packet
and did approve the following.
They determined that the project was exempt under class 3
and class 32.
The conditional use permit was approved
to allow the restaurant with takeout service
to be located in a freestanding building,
along with approval of the tree removals.
And again, as mentioned earlier, city council
did review the project and upheld Planning Commission's decision as part of the appeal.
So tonight, the Design Review Commission will be focusing on the design aspects of the project
that does include architecture, color materials, landscaping, lighting and signage.
Here is the site layout and as seen here, access and circulation into the shopping center
does remain the same.
The restaurant will be accessed from the existing driveways that lead into the shopping center.
There is a more detailed site plan that does show that the proposed restaurant that shows
the proposed restaurant in relation to the driveways and the closest parking spaces to
the restaurant.
And here is a look at the previously submitted floor plan which does show that the customer
access to the restaurant did occur only from Citrus Avenue.
And based on DRC's comments, the floor plan was updated to allow customer access from
both the north and south elevations of the building.
The door on the east elevation shown here is for restaurant deliveries.
That will typically occur two or three times a week.
The third-party drivers that preorder the food will be picked up from the doors that
you see near the meal fulfillment area of the restaurant on the north elevation.
So just to kind of recap, the last time DRC did review this project during the study session,
what you see on the slide where some of the comments that were made on the
project basically to focus more on the design and architecture to enhance and
articulate all sides of the building, to consider a second customer entrance on
the north elevation facing the internal parking area, and locate the 88 parking
stalls closer to the building entrance, and also to preserve the mature trees
that are located along Oak Grove near the Oak Grove and also near the proposed
outdoor patio area on Citrus Ave.
And the DRC also suggested to provide a connection from the building to Oak Grove to improve
the pedestrian circulation.
All of these comments have been addressed, except for the pedestrian connection from
the building walkways to Oak Grove.
The reason for that was there was a change in grade, so because of the slope, they weren't
able to provide a ADA accessible path and due to that the city the city
engineer advised the applicant not to put that in because that would actually
be a hazard or safety issue if it doesn't meet ADA. And here is now moving
on to the building design here is the front entrance of the building initially
this was the rear of the building with the store entrance facing Citrus Avenue
The plans were updated to have the primary entrance along the north
elevation as suggested by DRC to improve the overall customer experience from the
internal shopping center. The plans initially did show a stucco clad box
like design so the applicant has revised the plans to provide a custom design as
opposed to the previous design which offered very minimal wall planes or
or roofline variations.
The new design does incorporate more roof variations,
additional articulation, also wood and brick elements
were added to the building design.
And here is the elevation facing citrus av,
which provides a secondary entrance to the building.
Both entrances will have projected metal canopies
and the building is detailed consistently on all sides
and incorporates gabled and tower elements
along the roof line, providing that necessary
or visual interest or articulation to the building.
And the upper portion of the facade
is finished with a cream-colored stucco.
The tower elements are finished with board and batten
siding with decorative barn doors.
And the lower portion of the facade
will be finished with brick elements.
And here is the side elevation that will face Oak Grove Road.
And this is the other side elevation that's also looking to be looking to the adjacent
tenant which is Panda Express.
The variation in materials I believe do further enhance the design on these elevations as
well.
And as seen on this comparison rendering, all of the materials are now carried over
to all building elevations.
And here's another rendering for comparison.
does believe that the proposed changes in addition of the wood siding, the roofline
variation, the brick elements, do enhance the overall appearance of the building and
the new wood trellis that's added over the outdoor dining area will accentuate and activate
the outdoor dining area overlooking Citrus Avenue.
And now moving on to the proposed signage, the master sign program for this shopping
Center does allow two wall signs that could be illuminated and consist of channel letters.
The letter height allowed is 24 inches.
One six square foot blade sign is also allowed.
The Chick-fil-A is proposing three identical wall signs with a letter height of 48 inches
for the C in the business name.
The rest of the letters will comply to the 24-inch letter height.
applicant is requesting an amendment for the third sign location on the north
building wall and the letter height for the C in the business name to be larger
as it is the logo of the business and it does depict the chicken head for
their business. And as part of the signage a four square foot illuminated
sign reading delivery drivers will be mounted next to the door on the north
with elevation that does provide access
to the meal fulfillment area at the restaurant.
Staff does support the sign as it acts
as a directional sign for third-party drivers
for food pickup.
However, given that Chick-fil-A's business model
does allow third-party drivers but also allows customers
to pre-order to pick up their food.
So based on that, staff recommends
that the sign should read order pickup
to better direct all drivers to the door
on this elevation for retrieving their food orders.
However, staff would like DRC's input on this.
And moving on to the landscaping plan,
the applicant is planting 20 new 24-inch box trees
and five-gallon shrubs.
Five-gallon-sized shrubs.
And the trees consist of crepe myrtles,
western red buds, ash, and magnolia trees.
And these will be planted along both of the street frontages
as well as scattered throughout the parking areas
and around the new building.
And all proposed ground floor equipment and transformers
will be screened by the new landscaping.
And as suggested by DRC, the applicant
is preserving a total of six trees along both of the street
frontages.
And those are bubbled on this exhibit in yellow.
And as suggested by DRC, the applicant
did preserve those trees.
And what that staff does recommend
that the Design Review Commission approve
the proposed Chick-fil-A building
within the Citrus Marketplace Shopping Center,
subject to the conditions of approval.
And with that, I do conclude my presentation,
but I am here to answer any questions.
Thank you.
Great.
Do we have any questions of staff?
I have one.
Does staff know other signs in the Shopping Center?
I think there's a beverage and more
what the size of the bee is in the beverage?
I don't have that information specifically for that business.
However, we can get that information.
As far as I believe the anchor tenants all
are larger than this sign.
And Panda Express Signage is the same size as this one.
Anchors are allowed taller than 24 inch?
Correct.
and then the previous Bank of America building
in this location also had three sign locations,
and I think I added that.
So here I just basically show looking north on Oak Grove,
there's that Bank of America sign.
Looking east, there's that one.
And then looking south that's facing,
at the corner of Citrus Avenue and Oak Grove,
they also have a sign along with an ATM
additional sign over the ATM so it's not uncommon for freestanding buildings to
have more than two signs and this is a pretty outdated building so I couldn't
find any records to see how those three signs got approved so I'm not sure if it
went through a sign program amendment or they were just allowed to have the three
signs. Thank you. Any other questions? Can you just confirm the
location of these brand signs. I thought I saw conflicting. Yeah, I was wrong but I just want to go back to that slide.
So let me use the cursor. So here is the primary sign and like I said they're all
identical but this is the location which is facing north. That's the primary
entrance. The second one will be for the secondary entrance facing Citrus Avenue.
the third will be facing Oak Grove Road. So on the rendering so that the one on
citrus is actually shown in the middle of the building. So which which is it?
That's not correct. It should be over the door. Good catch. Is it?
Let me see, let me go, let me see, let me, let's see, is it, oh, it is, okay.
Yeah.
Okay.
So the applicant is proposing there.
Okay.
So I'll leave that question for the applicant.
Thank you for clarifying.
Thanks.
Other questions of staff?
Okay.
Do we have a presentation from the applicant or are they just available for questions?
I believe they're available for questions.
Okay.
the applicant to come up so we can clarify the sign location or it feels
clarified it's in the middle do we have any other questions for the applicant
I don't have any other questions but if it makes it clearer for them to just
state that that's the intent maybe that's let's do that why don't we have
the applicant come up and clarify that sign location for us hello my name is
Hudson Brooks, I'm with 4G Development.
We're the development consultants
for Chick-fil-A in the west.
And yeah, it will be per the plan,
so right in the middle of the south elevation.
So what we're seeing on the screen now.
Yes.
So it's over the outdoor dining area.
Correct.
As opposed to the entry.
Yep.
OK.
Thank you.
Do we have other questions of the applicant?
I do.
If perchance the one sign facing Oak Grove would be removed,
Would you still keep this sign where it is?
If the sign facing Oak Grove were to be removed,
are you saying would we want to move it closer to Oak Grove?
Over the entry door.
I can't speak to that.
That would be a trickfully designed decision.
I know our preference would be to keep the sign along Oak
Grove since it's a large road.
OK, thanks.
Other questions of the applicant?
OK, at this point, let's open for public comment.
The same process that we saw so far.
Fill out a speaker card.
Come up to the podium, state your name.
Any public comments?
We did receive a lot via email.
OK, so with that, we will close public comment
and bring it back to our commission for discussion
regarding the architecture, color, materials, lighting,
signage, and landscaping.
Don't hold that one.
I had provided similar about five comments.
So I'll just read them and the stone base,
mostly on the west elevation,
it seems a little bit out of proportion.
I think that should be brought up
by C provisionally they've agreed to that.
So that's good.
How that stone is actually detailed,
it actually, the elements should proud of the stucco,
which is great.
I think it's gonna be important that there be some kind
of a detail at the head of like a manufacturer cap
or something to cap that off
in that it'd be properly detailed
around the window openings because they're punched.
Wood siding, there's not a lot of detail
about the wood siding.
It looks, frankly to me, it looks,
maybe there's detail elsewhere,
but it looks like it's like T-111,
which wouldn't be acceptable.
I suggested, and they responded back,
that they would be doing a board and bat,
James Hardy type thing, which is fine by me.
It just needs to be a condition and for me.
Thank you.
Commissioner Villaglia?
No, I don't have any questions.
I mean, besides the sign that's not in place,
I saw the same thing with the score lines.
They're different in the rendering than in the elevation,
But that's meaningless at this point, so.
Do you have strong opinions about the extra sign
or the speaking?
Oh, I'm with Brian.
I mean, I think the third sign on Oak Grove is redundant,
but I'll leave that to the sign expert.
Okay, Commissioner Killian.
Yeah, I think for the sign master programs,
really only two allowed, Oak Grove would be the one
that I would think could be removed.
I'm not necessarily opposed to the three.
I'm opposed to it because you're not following the master sign
program, and I haven't really heard any reasons why
you should be allowed a third sign other than you're
putting it on the building.
As far as the four feet, I'm OK with that.
The sign seemed to fit the space,
and I think if it was any smaller,
it would look out of place in two weeks.
So, I'm okay as far as the request for the forefoot,
because I think it makes the building better.
The only other comment I have, and I don't know,
I guess this is just a general comment
that I've made with other projects,
haven't seen this on the irrigation,
that for the intent of water conservation,
it'd be a spot-drip irrigation as opposed to flooding it
with a subsurface irrigation line
and if that could be put into the condition.
And those are my comments.
Any additional comments?
I had a similar thought.
I wasn't sure if the Oak Grove sign was essential,
but I also felt as though that's the one
that's probably the least bothersome to the neighbors.
So I don't know if it was worth it.
I do think that the design of the building
and the location of the sign, I think is appropriate.
I like that.
it's giving good direction for people who are traveling nearby. I actually appreciate the
proportion of the sea in relationship to the logo and how it fits in the architecture itself.
The landscaping looked fine. I like the upgrade to the architecture and materials and the lighting.
I think the drop-off and pickup signage is also helpful. Okay, are we prepared to make a motion?
I did hear potential conditions of James Hardy. Am I saying that right? For the finish and the
in the architecture, there was a suggestion
of maybe no sign on Oak Grove,
but it doesn't seem like we're emphatic
about making that a condition,
and then I also heard a condition for spot drip irrigation.
Is there anything else you wanted to capture?
That the stone base be higher,
basically where the stone stucco interface is hard,
does this make the stone a little higher
to make it a little more proportioned?
on all sides or is there a specific side?
Well, it's all sides.
Okay.
But it's where the stone is below the stucco.
So if you look, go, this is a fine one to look at.
So if you look at the bottom elevation,
the plaster is above this,
the plaster is above stone on the far left
and on the sign panel.
I just think the stone needs to be brought up further
in those locations and on the other sides.
That's one piece.
The other piece is there needs to be appropriate detailing
around the windows and at the head of the stone
so that it looks finished, some, you know,
manufactured product or what have you,
and that the wood siding be board and bat.
So are you saying, I'm saying like the stone
would go up like three quarters of the elevation?
Is that, I'm not quite-
Yeah, yeah, I think that's a good point.
I think maybe 3 quarters of the way up, another two feet up.
When it does that, how does it interface with the sign?
Does the sign stay in the same location?
And it just comes up just below that?
That's a good point because I know this,
in the city we're very conscious of the height
these signs I wouldn't want to see the sign brought up really at all. Because it
does seem centered in the plaster or stucco portion now. Yeah I think that's
I think that that kind of change would fundamentally change the canvas that the
sign sits on and I'm not sure we have the ability to evaluate that without
having the drawings redone and I don't necessarily have a problem with the
current configuration. And I agree with you Peter I mean when I look at the
rendering doesn't look I when you look at the elevation yeah it looks funny the
proportions rendering looks much better so I'm trusting that the rendering is
correct. Yeah okay I'll back off on that. Okay. But I do think the stone it doesn't
say this and so the devil's in the details with these things I think they
do need to agree to have have a detail for the top of the stone and in some
detail around the windows because the windows are punched so we don't need to
see it it doesn't need to come back can I make a point of clarification on that
so that would be a stone ledge like a two-inch tall stone ledge that yeah yeah
out of that stone face yeah that might be a little yeah that's yeah yeah that's
right. And then around the window, the problem with this, because I've done it many times, is
the stone is regular. That window is very regular, so there needs to be almost like a stucco band
around the window to actually terminate it to something like that. Or they also have
manufactured products you can use to case the stone in. Either one of those things is fine
by me. And that could be approved at staff level. There's one thing that I would like to have a
a little bit more information.
Probably you can provide it now.
And that's the outdoor area.
The sitting area, the outdoor sitting area.
Hi, Malani Dannenberg.
I'm with Warren Malcolm, the architect on the project.
Did you have a specific question about that?
I don't have any image that shows me the outdoor area.
I would like, do you have a rendering?
Do you have a-
It's actually in the rendering.
So I believe it was mentioned previously
that was a wood trellis that's actually intended
to be a metal trellis.
And it's a concrete floor that extends to sidewalk,
extends to the building, is that what you're doing?
Yes, correct.
Thank you.
Let me just, since we're kicking this around,
what's the purpose of it?
It sounds like you have one panel
that might be a semi-shade area and just one.
And why there?
What was the problem?
Are you talking about the canopy over the entry door?
I'm talking about the vertical.
Well, it's a horizontal paneling or something
in the first bay of the outdoor seating,
but it doesn't appear to occur anywhere else.
Yeah, I think that was just a design element
to just try to create like an end cap to the patio area
and just a slightly more privacy
because there'll be a lot more traffic
kind of going into that second entry there.
Any other questions?
Yeah, the rendering doesn't really match the landscape
plan.
So I think that may be causing some confusion, right?
Because the landscape doesn't show a continuous sidewalk
that just goes right into the, right?
There's a planted edge.
Yeah.
There's a parkway strip, yeah.
Correct.
So the trolace element, does it go right
from the face of the building to the back edge of that planting
strip?
That's correct.
So instead of the planter boxes that you're showing in the continuous sidewalk, it's really
only you have to come in through those cuts in the landscape and then the corner view
we've seen is really a landscaped corner.
Correct.
Okay.
Any other questions of the applicant?
Go back to the rendering for a second.
Yeah, okay.
Yeah.
So the color of the metal.
Here the awnings are brown, the windows are brown, if you go to the other rendering, the
trellis is brown and then, well here it's different, here it says the dark metal, here
there's no indication of what the windows are but in other drawings it says the windows
are black. So is it the intention to make the windows brown to match the other brown metal or
black? They are, the color is indicated black but it's actually not like a true black. It is closer
to like a dark bronze. It's like a dark, dark solar bronze. Yeah. Anodized. Yeah. Okay. Right.
and the the wood is it just says wood siding here but it's bored and bad correct yes okay
all right so i mean those those are those are conditions that i'm we're going to want to see i
think is is the siding upper right in the corner shall be bored and bad and the and the metals
shall be dark bronze here's a sample oh there's okay don't it doesn't don't need a condition for
that because it's didn't see that you guys want to see it sure sorry that's
gonna slide on you no hit injuries any other questions comments ready to make
a motion sounds like I got rid of most of our conditions except for the spot
trip bit it's the only one remaining but you don't have to embrace that okay I'm
I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion then that we approve,
sorry.
Well Chair, if I may, if before we make the motion,
I would suggest that have all the conditions
that is being proposed by the commission,
they're in addition to what's in the resolution summarized.
And I would ask the applicant to say
that they agreed to them on the record.
Okay.
So you're saying of the things that we're reviewing,
the architecture, the color, the materials,
landscaping the lighting and the signage that we want to specify any conditions
we have and make sure the applicant agrees to that before we approve that's
okay so can you guys help me summarize any conditions we have for the
architecture color materials landscaping lighting and signage that we want to
make sure the applicant agrees to the wood siding shall be bored and bat okay
there shall be a properly detailed termination to the stone the cap and
and around the windows.
Anything else?
Irrigation thing.
Irrigation spot.
Spot.
I don't know if we had a consensus on the sign.
I'm coming down with two signs rather than three.
I don't know if I have any agreement with that
as a condition or not.
Is there a particular sign that you want eliminated?
Or you're just saying they can figure it out,
but we're only going to approve it?
I would say they could figure it out.
I'm opposed to the one, I think it's
redundant on Oak Grove, but again what I'm saying is they're allowed to and if
they want to put the second one there I guess that would be their privilege.
So through the chair that would that would simply be the non-support for
that for that exception. Right okay. So I think I'm missing one piece of
information here. What's that? What is the material of the what is the roof
material again. Sorry, I missed that standing scene. Thank you. I'd love to
get a little more feedback from how you guys feel about supporting or not
supporting the sign exemption. Is that something we want to ask the applicant
to change or not? Well I understand why they are proposing the signs where they
are. You know you have to have a sign over the front door and I would I do
appreciate that the sign on the what's the side street called I forget
Citrus. Citrus is mid building and it's obscured a lot but not obscured
from cars but you know from the pedestrians by the trellis and the
landscape and all those things so it seems fairly less intrusive on the side
street but then I also understand that Oak is you know a big wide thoroughfare
and you probably want to have a sign facing the street and especially if
coming from the intersection of Ignacio being that the aforementioned side street sign is
further down the street, how do you know that that's the chick-fil-a from the intersection?
So I guess I'm sympathetic to the rationale of the applicant.
Okay. Any other opinions one way or the other?
I like the two signs. I think the third sign on Ogrove is redundant.
I think you have a very good perspective from everywhere to the other two signs.
Okay, Phil.
I'm with Peter.
Yeah and if I, I would just say that if we remove
one of the signs, I'm not comfortable with them
moving the other one forward.
To the secondary entry.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I actually agree with that.
I'm concerned that if we require it to be only two,
that we'll get that one over the secondary entry.
Well, before we throw that out, just, I mean,
can we look at the opposite elevation
and see where that sign is?
So, I mean, maybe a compromise might be,
you eliminate the sign on the left here.
If you look at the bottom elevation,
you eliminate that sign on the left
and you take the sign that faces Oak Grove
and you put it over the other entrance.
That actually would give them fairly good visibility
because nobody's gonna see it behind that tree,
you know, as they drive by.
This is a street, people's main view is gonna be
as they drive by this thing.
Nobody walks by here, it's, so that'd be my suggestion.
I think that's the issue I actually don't love
because it creates confusion about where the front
of the building is, and it also makes it a much more
visible sign at the critical intersection
as you go into the community.
like that sign on the right where it is. Is there any clarity we can get from the
applicant and while you're hearing us kind of ping-pong this around? I'm with Chick-fil-A on staff, a development lead with them. I mean I'd
love to just be part of the conversation if you'll allow us to be. There is a
third option, I hate to add another option into the mix, but if you look at
the prior renderings there is that logo sign. The square one with chicken.
chicken. I don't like that one as much. You don't like that one? You guys can have other opinions,
but I was like, oh good, that one's gone. Yes. Yeah, there it is. Thank you. Right there.
So there was a legacy option to have the, I think the one prior to that. Yeah, one more slide
forward or back. It was, we're one click off. Thank you. Oops, sorry, the other way. There we,
Well, you can kind of see yeah that one
So if that that would replace
We oh grove grove one. Okay, correct, but that's still a third sign
Right. It seems like a bigger sign, right? Yeah
But it breaks it up
And you did I mean if I'm being honest you did see exactly where we were gonna request to go and we were gonna move
That over the secondary entrance on citrus if we were only allowed to I
I mean, I suppose I'd ask my fellow commissioners what their opinions are because I can see it both ways. I mean
having the activity of all that signage
up on Oak either north and south elevations
Sure
And it eliminates any signage going down the street
But then you wouldn't want to you know, that's two signs on that north headpiece is enough, right?
I mean because you get every elevation doesn't need a sign, right? Is there a scenario where there's no sign on citrus?
If it's a condition, is that the one that's the most offensive to the neighborhood because it's going down their neighborhood street
I feel like I'm assuming that but I don't actually know that that's the case
Right. I read in the letters. I got the impression. They were more offended by the four foot see yeah
Yeah, yeah, so it's not necessarily the location okay, and we have you can see in the renderings in the plans. We've been
Sensitive to the fact that we don't have anything facing their neighborhood directly and that is a lower
Elevation to move it
East rather than over the secondary entrance in that
taller rough area
I'm sensitive as well to the community
and I'm trying to rationalize in my own mind
which is the least offensive option.
I feel like, I hear what you're saying.
I think if you were to take this, that lower right.
The Oak Grove one.
Yeah, the Oak Grove one.
If you take it off and eliminate the other one
and move it up to the corner,
you're actually penetrating the neighborhood less.
So it's, that other one exists,
it's gonna be on the corner,
that's gonna be their most visible sign.
So it's more appropriate to have a sign there
than further down citrus in my mind.
It's putting the signs over the entries.
And like you said, I mean,
you're talking about to mark any entrance,
well, that is the entrance.
So they're gonna know where they need to go.
They're gonna see it.
It's, you know, one of the issues with these things
always you want the science to be in the exact right location so that people
will immediately turn get off the road and not make a bunch of decisions I
think I think that's if it were me at that would be the one location I would
want I mean I and I think it's I think it's okay there's another option I mean
eliminating the citrus one and moving the chick fillet and ogrove south more to
the corner. You know it what bothers me is that so many signs and this face and
this face and this face, probably two signs will do it and I mean them. But
that's I mean from the point of view of driving and getting there and making the
sign visible, it's redundant to have oak grove and citrus and so if you move the
oak grove one which wouldn't offend anybody, south of both grove towards the
south corner the south west corner of the building maybe that'll I don't know
maybe that'll be a golden mean there I can appreciate that idea although I I'm
a stickler for symmetry the building doesn't have any symmetry at all it on
the short elevation it does I guess I I'm convinced if there's only two signs
it's okay if it's on the north and south of the headpiece of the project about
the entries yeah I think so too I think if there were gonna be two that's where
it makes the most sense and then you're right it does tell you like this is
where you enter that's and it'll be visible from oak as you're driving it's
you don't assign actually parallel to the road isn't always that helpful yeah
okay I thank you for the dialogue thanks can I interject one thing if the issue
with the if the if the real issue here is is the the number of signs not
necessarily how it works or how it looks is it if it's just the with the MSP
only allows to their head there is some precedents there for free-standing
buildings and citrus marketplace Bank of America had three wall signs and that
were on the on the the walls that had roads or drive driveways I should say
so it would be both the streets and that internal circulation point.
So there is precedence if it's only the MSP exception that is the issue here.
But, you know, findings are that those signs could have been put
up illegally for, as far as the city knows,
there's no record of it or anything, correct?
Well, and the value of making such an exception isn't there,
and this is a great example of why, okay?
So you look at those two street trees right there,
which thank you for keeping.
You're not going to see that sign on Oak Grove there.
You won't see it.
So I think it's in your best interest
just to do the north and the south.
Some of the redundancy is due to the vast planting.
I mean, as you're driving by, you're absolutely right, sir.
I mean, as you're driving, that tree
is going to cover one sign, and you're
you're going to see another one and that was the logic behind having three on all.
Yeah, I mean, I just feel like it's a waste of money to put that sign there.
And it's, why would we break a signed standard for something that has no value?
I don't think it has any value, that's my opinion.
So if we're assessing the value with our purchase,
I guess we would say there is a value, too.
Yeah, I get it, but you know.
But we're OK with the taller C of the Chick-fil-A.
I'm OK with that.
I'm OK with that, too.
I will add this.
I mean, I went, I looked at the comment from the community.
I went around on Google Earth, and I looked around
this shopping center.
And there's many instances of logos
and so forth on these signs that are higher than two feet.
So there's a precedent there for that.
That's why I support it.
So I guess we're at the aforementioned conditions
and denial of the third sign.
And they can put the two signs on the north and south.
Any other items we need to clarify?
There is one.
Condition number four suggests the language
as shown, delivery drivers be changed for order pickup.
I'm not sure if you want to change that or keep that.
So that's like if somebody does a mobile order
or if it's a delivery driver ordering Uber?
My understanding is that delivery drivers
would use that window.
Or anyone who orders on an app, right?
can you clarify that for us?
So operationally it would be anybody
that's placed in mobile order.
So it's anybody other than a front counter carry out order.
So guests using the mobile app
and coming in themselves to pick it up
or using third-party delivery service.
Would you agree to that condition?
Yes.
Okay.
I don't have an issue with that.
I don't have an issue with.
Is the condition just removing the word delivery
or the primary wording to be pickup?
I think the intent is to make it obvious
to anyone who is in that situation,
whether they're an Uber Eats or a DoorDash,
or just anyone ordering that they can go to that door.
And I think the text can probably be resolved
at the staff level, maybe.
I agree, yeah.
That's perfect, yeah.
Okay, any other points we need to clarify?
One suggestion is on the condition for the wall signs,
being that technically they could have a sign
on any of these walls, just not all of them,
for the applicant to choose which walls,
just limit it to two signs?
I think we were suggesting specifically.
Specifically, okay.
The stucco areas over the entrances
on the north and south elevations.
Gotcha.
Not on the batten wood, not on other areas.
So in this diagram, it would be eliminating the arrow
from the oak grove side.
And the other two arrows are as indicated.
So you were right in the first place.
Thank you.
Since that, so because it does differ from the master sign
program that says if we can put two signs or an applicant can
put two signs wherever they choose,
we're not going to be able to agree to that condition
this evening.
So I'm not sure where that puts us as far as subsequent
discussion.
What is the process for that?
If they can't agree to a condition
we're trying to put in our motion.
If the motion was made and it was passed,
they would have the, they could appeal it,
or you could continue the meeting for further designs.
I don't remember us ever having this discussion
to where they disagree.
We change it.
I mean, we make the condition, it's up to them,
but they want to appeal it or not.
How about we say, sorry to talk.
How about we say we're gonna have two signs
and bring whatever you choose back
to the signed subcommittee?
I like that suggestion.
I'm good with that.
That's good.
Do we have enough information to make a motion?
I believe so.
OK.
Any other comment?
Anyone want to tackle the motion?
So the motion would be to adopt the resolution that's
in your packet with the addition of the conditions that's
stated by Vice Chair Newsom with regards
It's the same program amendment, the height of the letter C is included but not the request
for three signs and specifically with the areas that's been identified tonight on the
record.
And also with the just confirming that condition number four on the text of the order delivery
is revised as stated.
Yes.
And we added the two additional conditions about the stone and the irrigation.
Right.
That's what?
Yeah, she mentioned that one.
Yes.
And knew some comments.
So moved?
Yeah.
Ditto that.
I can make a motion that reiterates that.
That thing.
What she said.
Do I get a second?
Second.
Second.
I second to this right third it yes a roll call yes it's your case yes
Commissioner Weingarten I already yes mr. Killian abstain
Commissioner Valia yes vice chair Newsom yes motion carries okay thank you at
this point we'll move to Commission considerations so this is for items that
are not required to be publicly noticed but we're a formal staff presentation
and question and answer period are available,
also public input or discussion.
I believe we do have a presentation this evening.
Good evening, everybody.
My name is Ben Schuster.
I'm with the community development department.
I'm here to provide an update on some council action
that recently took place.
And I'm gonna share how that's affected
the city's design review entitlement process,
as well as the role of this body.
So I'll give a kind of brief overview of what took place.
I'm gonna touch briefly on objective standards
and how they relate to our new process,
and then spend most of the time focusing on
some of the changes that took place to the actual process
and to this commission,
and then we'll open it up for Q&A.
So on May 19th and June 4th, just a couple weeks ago,
The city council adopted a slate of municipal code amendments
that did a couple of different things.
So one, it adopted the residential
and residential mixed use design review standards
and guidelines that would replace the residential standards
in the city's current 1996 design guidelines.
And then they also adopted an ordinance
implementing a couple of different things
including objective development standards
for residential projects.
And then a new design review process
which revised the role of this body
as well as the role of various other bodies
and the community development director
and then some code cleanup as well.
So to step back, just briefly talk about why
this work was done in the first place.
So objective standards that was derived
out of recent relatively recent changes to state law.
There's a whole slate of state housing legislation
that require the use of objective standards
in reviewing residential projects.
And then later in that process in 2023,
the council provided direction to community development staff
that they wanted to streamline and overhaul
the design review process.
And some of the things that the council were looking for, again, focusing on streamlining
our process, eliminating what we called the loop around where this body would grant final
design review approval after all other entitlements on a project had been issued, and it was also
intended to provide flexibility to developers, to provide certainty to developers, and then
to also modernize our standards, incorporating design standards for new products
that hadn't been anticipated 20 years ago including mixed use type projects.
So just briefly, what is an objective standard?
An objective standard is essentially one that meets these three definitions.
It involves no personal or subjective judgment.
It is uniformly verifiable and or measurable.
and it is known to the applicant prior to submittal.
Our objective standards really come from two places.
That's the new design review standards and guidelines book as well as standards
that are already found in our zoning code that you should all be familiar with,
such as height, setbacks, that kind of thing.
Objective standards are required for review for certain types of projects.
Mainly that's residential projects
or residential mixed use projects.
And they're not intended for use
in essentially non-residential projects or any type of project
that involves a legislative action
like a general plan amendment.
And then again, just briefly, the difference
between the development standards which are found
in the zoning code, those essentially serve to set kind
One of the overall site layout and the building envelope and then the design review standards
and guidelines help provide the details to that structure.
The Design Review Standards and Guidelines booklet is organized like this.
So there are about ten chapters and each chapter covers a different design topic.
So here we have landscaping.
And it consists of an intent statement and then followed with sets of standards that
must be complied with, so those are shall statements.
And then guidelines, which are shoulds, are strongly recommended.
And we'll get into a little bit more of the difference in how those might be used during
project review.
So then I want to focus here on what Council's action did to change the process specifically.
So there was a number of things.
It kind of, most importantly, it changed the role of this commission from a decision-making
authority to a purely advisory body.
It also clarified the City Council's design review authority in certain situations and
gave that to the Planning Commission.
We also codified and clarified the review thresholds between staff and a other body
that had previously been located in a design review commission resolution.
And then we established new processes to accommodate all the new state housing legislation.
And then, again, as I previously mentioned, we eliminated that loop back around that council
was really focused on.
So looking at this slide here, the now proposed, it's actually adopted, roles are on the right
hand side in blue and the existing roles or rather the past roles in orange on the left
hand side.
I've kind of outlined here how the role of the Design Review Commission specifically
has changed.
So in the past you would serve as the decision making body for design review approval for
essentially large projects, and then there was always the option for staff to essentially
push up a smaller project to this commission if it felt it was needed.
Under the new framework, this body would become an advisory only body on large projects.
The planning commission becomes the new approval body, and so this body would advise the planning
Commission on their decision to approve or deny a design review entitlement.
Again, I previously mentioned design review thresholds, so just to kind of show that here,
we took essentially the existing review thresholds that were found in the DRC resolution that
delegated certain projects to staff, and we codified them.
And so, essentially, four residential units or fewer, those are going to be a staff level
approval, small additions, most of this is essentially exactly the same.
Where they differ is we provided some definition around things, around definitions that were
subjective.
So for example, minor revisions, we had to clarify what that meant, and we clarified
it here for example by saying a minor vision is a 10% or smaller deviation to any landscape
quantity or building dimension.
And then the inverse of that is anything that's not specifically stated as a small project
is a large project or rather a major project and those are approved by the planning commission.
What that means for this body even though your role has changed in terms of your advisory
versus decision making, the types of projects you will see essentially don't change.
Okay, moving on to what our new design review categories are, there's three, there's ministerial.
This is essentially we've codified the process to approve certain state housing law projects,
most commonly Senate Bill 35 for certain affordable housing projects.
These projects regardless of the size because of their nature are always approved by staff
and that comes out of state law that says such projects cannot be approved at a public
meeting.
Must be approved by staff.
Objective this is objective design review is intended to encompass other state housing
laws like Senate Bill 330 which essentially provides a streamlined process for most residential
projects in the state of California, and also requires the use of objective standards in
reviewing said projects.
And then discretionary design review, this most closely matches what the current process
is.
The approving body for discretionary projects have the most discretion, about as much discretion
as they do today.
A great example would be the Chick-fil-A project.
That is a nonresidential project which will always go through discretionary design review
and we'll move on.
So because this body will never see ministerial projects, I'm really just going to focus on
objective and discretionary design review for the rest of this presentation.
So objective design review, there is very limited discretion involved in this process
regardless of who is reviewing the project, again, we are we are basically looking at a set of
objective criteria that is known to all parties involved in the development process and whoever
the review body is is simply looking at a checklist and seeing does the proposed development comply
with all items on the objective checklist. If yes, the city must approve said project.
So for minor projects,
this would either be done by staff most of the time or the zoning administrator,
which is essentially a staff person under specific circumstances.
And then anything over four residential units,
that would be acted upon by the Planning Commission with
the DRC getting one meeting prior to that and advising on the project.
the
City Council wanted to ensure that there was a public forum for certain residential projects even though
The Planning Commission in this case would still be only able to
Approve a project based on compliance with objective standards. There's limited discretion. The council felt it was important to preserve a
public forum for those types of projects and
And then discretionary design review, again, the process is exactly the same.
So staff will look at small projects.
The Planning Commission with the DRC advising will look at larger projects.
I kind of touched on this already, under objective design review, a project must be approved
if it complies with all objective standards.
There are only very narrow grounds for denial, and this is based in state law, and these
These are very specific health and safety findings that the state law defines.
Discretionary Design Review, again, that's essentially what we have today for most projects
and projects may be approved if the reviewing body believes it essentially meets all the
applicable standards and guidelines and the planning commission or staff would make the
appropriate findings of approval.
And again, wide discretion to approve or deny or condition a project.
And then finally, the City Council also took action to clean up a number of miscellaneous
approval duties of this body.
Some of these were kind of arcane, little used, just code clean up things like the placement
of heliports in certain districts.
These are kind of tangentially related to the design review process.
So for example, the approval of tree removals when they were associated with discretionary
development such as a design review entitlement.
And then the last two items on your screen, which I have shown as pending, the DRC is
currently codified as the approving body for custom outdoor dining structures and for signage.
Those are currently being discussed as to what the appropriate new approval body will
be.
And those changes would be codified later this year when we go back to the city council
with the non-residential design review standards and guidelines.
And so those changes would were anticipating would go into effect in October of this year.
So I'll stop there and I'm available for any questions you may have.
Thank you so much.
Do you have any questions?
I have a question.
So what's different about our discussion and our process?
We still make motions of whether or not
to send it to Planning Commission.
We still vote.
Does it feel primarily the same on our end?
There will not be a resolution.
It's more of a discussion in terms
of what the kind of in-practice process will look like.
I think there's still a little bit to be determined.
It's new for everyone.
But the city council was pretty clear on their direction
that they wanted the discussion at DRC
to be limited to one meeting only.
So that was codified.
But that the members of this commission
ultimately the still the city's design experts and so presumably the
recommendations made here and the discussion made here would carry some
weight with the Planning Commission and in their decision yeah so what you're
saying is that we get one meeting and we can only give our opinion and for
someone else to take or not and there's no authority or it's really just in our
opinion take it or take it if you want is what you're saying yeah so there you
have it but but but this is this is my question so you know we're gonna we're
gonna make our opinion and the Planning Commission can take that opinion and
they they can make those requirements right that's yes yeah I like I can't
argue with what's been done, right, but I appreciate what the objectives were, but
I would just say that design is not well understood. And, you know, I just worry
that, you know, I would be concerned about a world which was only the result
of objective standards. And, you know, I worry that people will not be forthright
in coming before this body,
knowing that it has no potential in the outcome,
or seemingly could be overridden by another authority.
Sure.
So.
If I may.
Mm-hmm.
I think that in the words opinion were offered forward,
I think that actually there's a recommendation
that goes to planning commission.
So it's a very powerful statement
of using your design abilities
and your recommendation as a body.
And as Ben had mentioned,
the expectation and anticipation
is that the Planning Commission would offer great deference
to your thoughts and your opinions
and your design expertise as a body.
And I just wanted to highlight that
because it was very clear also from council
that they value your perspective
and you're being able to look through that lens.
And it's a very important lens as you put it,
as you identified.
And that's something they didn't want to lose,
but they also recognized that there were
some hitches in the get along in terms of
both state law and then trying to expedite things.
And so what they're trying to do is to get clarity
and to facilitate things,
but also to acknowledge the great value
that you bring to the process.
So is the Design Review Commission like an obstacle
for the process to go on fluidly and complete?
So under state law for housing,
and it's basically anything more than five meetings
and anything that is not considered
to be an objective design standard
is considered to be an obstacle
to achieving affordable housing.
And so I think that is an accurate statement.
But that having been said,
I think that the members of this body
and then the subcommittee have done great work
and helping to set up what those standards are
and we're greatly appreciative.
And I believe that I, you know, Council's also expressed that opinion also.
So we start off at a really great base here within the community.
And for those things, as Ben had noted, that are on the discretionary side,
Council had received feedback from the community, from our developers and so forth,
that they were wanting to be able to have both greater certainty of process
and then also to expedite it.
But council, given that consideration,
they also recognize the great value
that Design Review Commission has brought
to the community historically,
and they wanted that to continue.
And so they very much were strong advocates
of having your voices heard and included
as part of the process.
And may I add that when the director says
as part of the process, there was a subcommittee
of this commission that was involved in the entirety
of developing the objective design standards.
So is there still a scenario where projects that we see
are gonna be the type that we can't really make
a lot of recommendations on
because they're checking all these boxes
or now that they're checking the boxes,
it's not gonna come here.
Does that question make sense?
If it's a major project
and it's subject to objective design standards
that needs to go to the planning commission
for like a subdivision map.
Yeah.
You would see it.
So you can always offer some recommendations
that might that would make it, in your opinion,
make it a better building that would still be different
than proposed, but still meet the objective design standards,
just another path.
And that could either be implemented or not.
But it would make, to back to the director's point,
it would make it on recommendations
of the Design Review Commission
to the Planning Commission in the staff report.
So hypothetically, tonight's meeting
would have been the Planning Commission
gets a recommendation that there be only two signs.
Instead of it being validated and made mandatory here,
the Planning Commission sees that we recommended that
and they get to decide whether to enforce it or not.
Yes, we're recommended with those recommendations
and recommended conditions of those that,
because I'm not sure that we'd even make motions,
but we would have to have at least four or three
of the commission agree to those things.
So we need to find consensus for that recommendation.
Will the planning commission participate
in the selection of the design review advisory board,
whatever they're gonna be called now,
would they participate in that or would that still be done?
You mean moving forward when this commission,
When we turn over, when the next round of applicants
comes through, will they be a part of that?
That I don't know.
That's a prerogative of council, the appointments,
and so they would still continue to have that role.
Okay.
So from the outside looking in,
if I'm the Planning Commission,
you're getting design review recommendations,
just like you get staff recommendations,
it's viewed in the same way.
So staff recommends,
Design Review Commission recommends,
and that gives them the authority and the act.
But this is,
It's, we're an advisory commission,
even for discretionary projects, right?
That's correct.
Everything?
Correct.
Okay.
I got it.
Well, I mean, like I appreciate the intent
and what the objectives are
in trying to facilitate development.
Also, I'm just cognizant of why I'm personally here,
which is to help ensure a beautiful Walnut Creek.
And I hope that smarter people than me
who set down these legislative processes
have come up with something that'll ensure both.
And I'm just happy to serve.
You'll have my opinion whenever you need it.
Okay, any other questions, comments?
I can just close this, right?
Am I doing all my hearings and stuff correctly?
Okay, we'll move on to our commissioner member
and staff reports or announcements.
Do we have any from our commissioners?
Anything else from staff?
Chair, there is nothing else from staff.
Okay, so with that, we adjourn.
Gabbel, done.