moving on to our consent calendar I believe we have one consent calendar
which is the adoption of the meeting minutes of January 23rd 2025. Do we have
a motion? Move adoption of the consent calendar. Second. Will the Secretary
please take the roll. Commissioner Kwok? Yes. Commissioner Ward? Yes. Commissioner
Mr. Clark?
Yes.
Commissioner Niting?
Yes.
Vice Chair Anderson?
Yes.
Chair Strongman?
Yes.
Motion passes.
Thank you.
Our next item on the agenda is public communications.
This is an opportunity to public to address us on any subject that is not on the agenda.
If you're here for the project, having a public hearing for you will have a voice at that
time.
But otherwise, anyone have anything they would like to tell us on any other subject?
We're welcome to come forward, please.
Seeing nobody coming to the podium,
we will close public communications
and go on to a disclosure of ex-tarpte communications
and other issues.
Okay, I see none on that.
We'll move on to item four, public hearings.
The project is a Haven Single Family Residence Development.
Application Y24-051.
I would like to comment that I was, I discovered after reading through the materials that I
live only about 700 feet from the site of the hearing tonight and so I'm going to recuse
myself from that matter, my leave.
And I will have a staff presentation.
I will try to add the mic.
Good evening, Chair Strongland Planning Commission.
My name is Gerardo Victoria, I'm an assistant planner with the community development department.
The project before you today is the Haven single-family residential development located
at 1948 Third Avenue, application ID Y24-051.
Some site context for the project at 1948 Third Avenue.
The parcel is outlined in the white dotted lines here.
This is Third Avenue.
The general plan designation is single-family medium.
The zoning is single-family residential and it is surrounded by other single-family residential
homes here.
The project description is to demo the existing single-family residents and accessory structures
on the site, construct a six-lot subdivision with a private street, construct a five-foot
land dedication consistent with the future street setback standards along Third Avenue
here and construct six two-story homes, one of which affordable. Here are the
first three and here are the last three. Provide new landscaping, remove 19 trees,
three of which are highly protected in Walnut Creek, provide new fencing and
retaining walls, provide density bonus with 13 waivers. This project is under
review under SB 330 and they are complying with the objective design
standards with the exception of the 13 waivers that they're asking for under
density bonus law. Tonight the Planning Commission is tasked with
consideration for the new Haven single-family residential development.
This project went before the Design Review Commission on December 4th 2024
as a study session. Tonight the project is before the Planning Commission for
consideration of a major subdivision, density bonus, design review, tree removal, and tree
drip line encroachment permits. So when this project went to the design review commission
on December 4th, design review made recommendations for the project to incorporate additional native
trees and more native plant species to the site, study the fenestration on lot 4 for additional
privacy for the adjacent property on Thomas Lane, provide additional two by
four trim detailing to enhance the architecture, study the lots one and four
as they need additional attention regarding colors and materials. The
bioretention they advise to evaluate the feasibility of relocating the
bioretention area that's adjacent to lot six to the position alongside lot three.
additional recommendations was to replace the two foot wood retaining wall
proposed on the plan set with a concrete retaining wall and a seven foot fence
received clarity on the density bonus unit on how that was costing the
developer require the HOA to have the following conditions one parked car
parked in the garage and trash receptacles to be kept inside of the
garage. So the applicant has provided an additional coast-live oak on the plant
set, which is a highly protected tree in Walnut Creek, and they are providing
additional native plant species. Now I understand that the applicant has made
additional changes to the landscaping, which is that when they come up in their
turn to speak they will provide that context for you. They are providing a
two-foot concrete retaining wall instead of the two-foot wood retaining wall with
seven-foot fence. They are going to provide smaller windows with a six-foot sill height.
Now your staff report in your project plan state it's a six-foot fence but that is another
detail that they are changing to provide a seven-foot fence on top of the two-foot retaining wall.
They will provide additional two by four trim detailing on all windows and doors throughout
the site. Full siding on both floors with an enhanced pop-up window and a large bellyband
on lots 1 and 4. Now the bioretention area, they studied it. Moving that adjacent to lot 3 would
create a low point in the middle of the site which could cause flooding to lots 3 and 6.
So in order to maintain the historic drainage path, they decided against moving that bioretention
area that's adjacent to Lot 6 to Lot 3.
Now, let me stop there because the senior engineer for staff is here.
He's going to provide greater context when there's questions available for the buyer
retention areas.
The additional recommendations, I will outline on the proposed site plan and other slides
coming up on how that's going to look.
The applicant has agreed to discuss the following conditions in the CC&Rs and regarding the
clarity on the density bonus unit and how that was costing the developer.
So each unit to build is between 1 million and 1.5 million.
And the moderate income unit that they're providing, the density bonus unit, they need
to turn around and then at a moderate income level, that's how it's costing the developer.
But they can provide further context if I'm misspeaking.
So this is the existing site plan, as you can see here.
This is the existing single family residence with the accessory structures here and here.
This is Third Avenue here.
This is the proposed site plan.
All six lots are ranging from 2,660 square feet to 4,060 square feet.
The biggest one is lot three right here.
So this is the new seven-foot fence that they're providing that runs alongside lots one and
three all the way to lot four down here in the blue and it runs on the rear of lots four
five and six with this yellow and I apologize because I'm colorblind I think this is yellow
but this yellow that the two-foot retaining wall runs from lot three all the way to the
side of lot four and to the rear of lot four.
So the density bonus request, the General Plan designation allows 3.1 to 6 dwelling
units per acre.
So the maximum for this site is 5 units.
Because they are providing one affordable unit, it is a 20% density bonus that's dedicated
to moderate income level.
Because they are providing the 20%, they are allowed an additional 15% increase in density,
which equals to 0.75, which is one unit.
This is where they're getting their six maximum
single family residences.
Now, just to clarify,
density bonus allows relief from standards
that would physically preclude
a feasibility of the housing development.
The applicant is requesting 13 waivers
from the regular development standards.
The city is required to waive such standards
unless it makes specific findings
that any such proposal would have a specific adverse impact
upon the health safety of the physical environment. So these are the 13 waivers
I'm just going to touch on a few. So the minimum lot size sizes in the
residential aid zone are 8,000 square feet. They are proposing the minimum lot
size for the development at 2,600 square feet. The minimum side yard setback in
the in the residential aid zone is five feet on one side. They are providing
three and a half feet. The aggregate side yard setback in the residential eight
zone is 15 feet. They are providing seven feet. And the minimum rear yard
setback in the residential in the residential eight zone is 15 feet and
they are providing 14 feet. So this is the design. They have two designs. They
have two style homes the Bay Area and the farmhouse. Plan one Bay Area, plan two
Bay Area, Plan 1 farmhouse, Plan 2 farmhouse. This is a design that went before the Design
Review Commission meeting on December 4th. As you can see, they made minor modifications.
They did provide smaller windows, what they call bullet windows. I know that's not a term
that's often used, but they just mean smaller windows with a sill height of 6 feet. I will
clarify this point in another slide regarding the windows and the sill heights. Just some design
features. They are providing smooth coat stucco with a lap siding. This is designed for the farmhouse
that went before the design review commission meeting on December 4th. Some minor modification
that they've made is smaller bullet windows with a pop-out right here and as you can see it's
smooth coat stucco and some design features with some lap siding. So all new landscaping
that is will be located and maintained that allows visibility to the site.
So they are proposing four new trees there is an update to that number which they will present when
when they come up.
Here you have two desert willows,
the new Coast Live Oak, and the Magnolia.
At the Design Review Commission hearing on December 4th,
they were only proposing Magnolia trees.
So on the site, there's a total of 28 trees.
They are proposing to remove 19 total,
all outlined here in red.
The ones with the stars are the highly protected trees.
Out of those 19, the city arborist has approved
removing 11.
The eight trees that are remaining are in good health.
And the green trees are here that
are going to be staying on the site.
So staff anticipates to use the categorical CEQA exemption.
And staff was able to make the findings as outlined
in the staff report that has been provided to you.
So staff is recommending to move to adopt the draft resolution
Regarding the secret determination,
the major subdivision, the density bonus
and requested waivers pursuant to state density bonus law,
tree removals and tree drip line encroachment permits
with the added conditions of approval
that the second story windowsill height
on the left elevation of lot four
shall be no less than six feet
and shall be shown on the plan submitted
for building permits.
I am available for questions.
The senior engineer for staff is available for questions
and the applicant is also here with the presentation.
Thank you for your presentation, very informative.
So starting now with the commission questions,
seeing none, or do you have a question?
Seeing none, I guess one of my questions is that
reading through all the materials,
there seems to be questions about the drainage.
Could you spend some time or have somebody
spend some time explaining that current drainage
and the drainage after development?
Yes, at this time, I'm gonna call up Ryan Cook,
the Senior Engineer, who can speak to that.
Good evening, commissioners.
My name's Ryan Cook, Senior Engineer with the city.
So, overall, the drainage for the site,
everything drains from the,
let's see if we can pull up a plan, site plan here.
Basically, kind of from the west to the east
and to the north a bit.
So the low point for the property
is located in the northeast corner.
As far as the project goes, one of the requirements
is the from our municipal regional permit
from the state water board is that they have to treat
all the onsite water.
And so there's bioretention basins throughout the site
that they have to install.
The main one in question and of issue is in the,
is in that bottom right corner on the plan shown,
which is the Northeast corner.
That is the historical low point.
And the main issue is to try and relocate that.
and as the applicant had provided in their comments
back from after designer view.
Moving that to a new location would require raising
that corner of the site,
and unfortunately that would have negative consequences
as it relates to potential flooding onsite
with those units, because as part of best practices,
we always make sure we have an overland release,
and that goes in the same location
that drainage has historically gone to,
which is in that corner.
And so raising that up significantly
would cause potential impacts on site.
And so city staff supports the design as shown
as far as best management goes for drainage.
Okay, there is supposedly there is an easement,
drainage easement on the property.
So along the Eastern property line,
there are, there's two primary easements.
There is a storm drain easement
that the city does have pipes that go along the,
coming from along the North property line
and then turn and go through the property
out to Third Avenue.
The bigger one that's of more issue
is the sanitary sewer easement
that is also along that east side.
Central San is, they're the owners and rights of that
and they have standards for 15 feet for the easement
and they have strict standards
that no bioretention facilities
or other drainage facilities
be within their easement.
And so unfortunately those bioretentions can't be relocated into those areas because it doesn't
meet their standards.
Thank you.
Questions?
Just to piggyback on that, thank you for coming and providing your expertise.
Why was there a suggestion to move the bioretention area?
The residents at the DRC meeting in December
had requested that it could be adjusted.
And Gerardo, correct me if I'm wrong,
the goal was to shift the buyer retention
that's in the lower right there,
so that way they could shift the overall units
further to the east to create a larger setback
from the property on the west side.
Yeah.
So I have a question about what standards you're using
to determine flooding and how that works,
because it seems like we hear a lot about
100-year floods and these kind of things,
but with climate change and the like,
we're seeing 100-year floods every year.
And so I'm wondering if you can speak
to what standard was used
and how that's reflecting our current situation.
Absolutely.
So our current standard for projects to this side
only have to treat a 10-year storm event,
which is a much smaller event than,
or more frequent event than the 100-year.
And so it's a lower standard, but it's still something
that as they evaluate and provide their hydraulics
in terms of the quantity of water
that collects on the site.
And the flooding issues primarily,
if there's an issue with the storm drain system
that they have on site, if it gets clogged
or anything like that, it can create flooding.
Not necessarily it's not in a flood zone
or along those lines.
Okay, thank you.
Other questions?
Yes, Commissioner.
Are all of these providing hydro modification?
No, they are not.
This project is only subject to treatment only and not
hydro modification.
So they don't have to do flow control.
Because so there's going to be both engineers.
So there's going to be more volume of water coming off
the site.
So as part of their and city's requirements for that,
They have to demonstrate that their post-project runoff
does not exceed pre-project conditions.
And so they have various methods of storage
and metering that to,
while they're not subject to hydromodification
in the sense of the state water board's requirements
for the MRP, they are required to meter flow
based upon city standards.
So only the flow coming off will be metered,
but there's gonna be more volume of water
you're increasing the impervious area significantly, right? Yes, and all that is going to the city's
underground storm drain system. So you're going to have additional volume of water exiting the site
by way of the increase of the impervious area. So did they do an analysis on that increased volume
of water in the pipes? Sorry, no, there is storage pipes that they have. I don't have the
of the bioretension basin number.
But in the middle of the site on the bottom of the plan,
there are storage pipes there that are to,
it's not shown on this plan, but to meter and store
water on site.
Two 24-inch storm drain pipes, they have a weir.
So it looks like they have a weir system
by way of a four-inch orifice.
Yes, and so that's to meter to meet pre-project conditions.
And so that should ideally provide detention
and retention, so that the post equals the pre?
Yes.
And then I see that there's a sewer and a storm drain line.
I would say like one thing that kind of concerns me
is if something happened to that sewer line,
there's no junctures on either,
you're putting a new road on top of it.
is this for the new mainline extension within the roadway
or the existing one in these mental on the east side?
It's the existing eight inch sanitary sewer.
Like if something would happen,
that if something would happen
and you have to break up the pavement there,
is that a turnaround for the fire department?
That is the, so the actual driveway does meet the,
drive aisles do meet fire standards for turnaround as far as the sanitary sewer
going underneath that that is completely standard and that's within central sand
standards and everything and they're putting a new main line down the street
as well. If it needed maintenance then central sand would come in there and
they would tear it up and replace their line or fix it and then replace the
asphalt it would be for a short period of time just during during
construction just like any other repair other questions of staff okay well now
thank you very much and we'll now open for public communications and start with
the applicant like to come up and talk to us good evening honorable
commissioners, city staff and Walnut Creek residents, thank you for your time
this evening, my name is C.M. Oazami with Haven Development. I prepared a
presentation for everyone this evening, however I think Gerardo did a fantastic
job presenting the project and some of it's redundant so I won't go in and
repeat some of the things that Gerardo already covered. We thank you for your
time this evening. I've got my consultant team with me here this evening if you
have any technical questions. Civilist here, architects here, landscapes here. The
one clarification I would like to make is we did we are planting ten new trees
and six of those trees are from the list of protected trees by the City of
wall on the creek and four or not, is that right Hanukkah, six and four. So, and to the
extent we could, we accommodated the residents adjacent to us on the west and to the north
of us. We listened to their concerns about, you know, a wood wall. We changed that wood
wall to concrete wall, we increased the fence height, we added more interesting architectural
features to improve the project overall, and so I'm here to answer any questions. If not,
our design team is here, and thank you very much for your time.
Thank you. Questions for the applicant? Yes.
What's the height of the buildings?
The height of the buildings, that's a great question.
All the way to the eaves.
to the eaves. Maybe Dolan knows. Oh sorry. Just give me a bear with me. Sorry.
Uh if you if you can find it faster than I can show that. On the elevation drawing I just had a page
to the highest point of the structure. Uh it is 28 feet eight inches and then on the
Bay Area elevation it goes 24 inches to the highest point. Thank you. Other questions?
Seeing none thank you very much. Thank you. And we will now open it up for the rest of the public.
We would like to make any comment you would like on this project. Please come forward to the podium.
Okay, we do have them.
Thank you for allowing us to come tonight to make our public comments.
My name is Cynthia Schneider, my partner and I, he's back there, Jim Durandis, live at 741 Thomas Lane.
We purchased our home in 2009. We shared the common fence along. I don't know which direction it is
the perimeter with the Haven property I have had a
gazillion meetings with the city people and I and with the Haven people I thank them all for the time and generosity
Their information they provided. I'm not even going to try to get into
questioning the
Bonus density plan. I might make a comment at the end
What I'm here about is that my biggest concern as I know it now unless
Haven has done some adjustments is how this project is going to be impacting our privacy
I've had color photos in the back and
Photo one and two shows I'm mostly concerned with lot four
Because that butts our property starts at three and a half feet setback, which is the equivalent of a
couple feet maybe if you walk the line and a 14 foot setback, so
With that proximity to our house
Literally whoever buys unit number four will be able to see into our bedroom
I photo number one shows the view from our house to the project site photo
number two is from the project site looking into our bedroom area which you
have to add another 20 feet so they'll be able to see into our bedroom and four
five or six actually run across the whole property line we entertain etc so
my biggest concern is lot number four specifically unless I heard differently
The large did it end okay okay so thank you I'm glad I wrote the detail and yes
we are limiting everybody to two minutes like the City Council rules my name again
is Jim jurendis so we are partners on Thomas like I just want to address the
trees a little bit as we have could you go to that screen we had the green and
the show yeah if you could go to that our concerns is we have three probably
75 foot redwood trees there in the back when he gets that screen here where the
red well that's that'll do it where the green where the greens are in the red so
back past the green and there's they're right at that corner that's one of the
reason there's two more and then we have a probably a 30 35 40 foot one is the
next one green down. And then our neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Edwards, those are the
two, yeah, down below those are their redwood trees and then Granger's are the
four or the five that are along the the other property along heading towards
Third Avenue. So my our concern is that with the grading a lot and everything
those redwood trees can be very sensitive. Now I know Haven has said they
will have an on-site arborist which is good and they will build a fence around
them. But I'm just concerned that somehow those could get damaged. And the other
question I have is on on the green ones, all of them, and maybe that's because I
don't understand maybe that's the drip line deal, but those are all on our
properties. Those are not on the Haven property. So when they say that those
are going to remain, I question whether they, do they, do they have that
authority to designate our trees as being remained? Maybe that has to do with the
drip line I'm not familiar with it but anyway so comment and then there are
seven trees that the arbors did noted we have five junipers we planted in two
more redwoods and that was in 2019 through through about 2019 20 so those
are not noted on that arbors report how do we make sure that those roots don't
get damaged to you know because they're they're visible from the property but it
wasn't noted. How do we ensure that those are going to be taken care of. Thank you
very much. Thank you very much. Good evening. My name is Terry Edwards. My
wife and I have been in Walnut Creek since 1992, so we've been here for 33
years. And we're very, very concerned about what we've seen happening in the
last five to ten years in terms of the density changing in Walnut Creek. So
we're right next to Cynthia and Jim and to have six lots and what amounts to a
half acre of space is just incredible. We think that four would be about right
But I mean, this is supposed to be three-quarters of an acre, but probably at least a quarter
of an acre is taken up with the easements and the common drive.
So that leaves about a half an acre for six houses.
And that is just incredible.
We've never seen anything like that.
So I'm just concerned about what's happening in Walnut Creek.
And I think also the fact that these houses are so close together, that would be a risk
insofar as fire safety too.
Because if one of these groups of three houses catches fire, I think it's going to be the
other houses there in that group are going to be at risk.
So, that's basically what my concern is.
It's just the way, the direction that this is heading in Walnut Creek.
Thank you very much.
Hi, my name is Steve Collins, thanks for listening to me.
I have that building, I have that property adjacent, and I have a three and a half foot
proposed offset, lot number four.
That building is three units, three different addresses, all on Third Avenue, 1958, 1960
and 1962.
They're low income, I have working people, good folks in there.
I've had the property for 30 years and I'm just asking for a couple of more feet offset
and that, you know, just five feet, five more feet would be significant in easing problems
between the people that live there, the new buyers and my tenants.
And that's really it.
That's what I'm asking.
I know this is my final chance to ask for that,
and I'm just asking for five more feet.
And thank you for hearing me.
Thank you.
Hello.
Hello, I'm Jonathan Spiegel.
I'm right across the street at 1951 Third Avenue.
In a very positive note, I'm really
pleased to have single-family homes being put up there
and not fast food or junkyard.
And it seems like New Haven's been doing really good
in responding to our request.
My only concerns, I wanted to point out that easement,
I guess it's a sewer easement,
is used to park heavy equipment
in large trucks every day.
I don't know how that impacts this project,
but that certainly seems kind of innocuous
for a residential neighborhood.
And I'm here to echo, I appreciate we have to infill,
We have to improve density,
people have to be able to have homes to buy,
but adding one low density unit or one low income unit,
and then taking three groups of working people
and putting them in perpetual shade,
that doesn't quite seem equitable to me.
So I mimic Steve's comment and really like something done
to give those people a little more space.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hello, my name is Rob Johnson,
and I live at 1910 Third Avenue.
And I wonder if I could ask the builder,
is this the only style home they make?
Or do they make smaller homes?
And why would they wanna put such large homes
so close together on this street?
I came to Third Avenue in about, I don't know,
30 years ago.
I didn't know exactly what it was.
And what I found is it's a very charming little neighborhood,
and I think this project is going to disrupt it.
And I'm not exactly sure what the city is thinking about,
but what the future of this Third Avenue-less,
charming little neighborhood is going to be
if you keep building these big homes
right next to each other
and squeeze out all the children play places to play.
I've seen this neighborhood develop into a wonderful little spot.
And I've lived in a number of spots around the Bay Area, and I would say this is probably
the nicest one I've lived in.
So I was wondering, can the plants for this be redone, or is it locked in at this point?
Could they go to four smaller homes, or it has to be this.
actually have some other ideas about what could be developed there without
disrupting the 3rd Avenue that little area but I was just wondering if do they
even build a smaller home? I don't have an answer for that myself. No I didn't
think that I mean has it been presented to them or can you even present that
kind of thing? I'll let the applicant come back up and answer that question if
they can build a smaller home, but I can't, I can't answer.
Okay.
I mean, I just wondered, you know, it's like buying a car.
Can you go to the showroom and you can only buy the big car.
You don't have other options.
Okay, you won't, you have your two minutes
and then we'll have him possibly come back.
Okay, thank you.
Anyone else?
Okay, we will now close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission for questions
or...
So, Chair, if I can, before you do that, if you wanted the applicant to answer that question,
I just...
Okay.
Okay.
Before I close the...
I'll reopen it slightly and for the applicant to come back and answer those questions, please.
Sure.
Thank you.
change is not easy for anyone and you know I understand you know it's just
part of life I think and you know the Bay Area needs more housing and you know
if you just go around the Bay Area you'll see areas that were once orchard
or now single-family homes 20 years later their town homes you drive down on
the peninsula they're larger buildings so it's you know it's it's it's
It's difficult, but families need places to live,
and when you have an acre lot and you've
got to put in a street and build an affordable unit,
there's only so much you can do as a developer
and still make money.
So to answer the last gentleman that spoke,
shrinking the homes would make the project infeasible.
You know, our bedrooms are, we have like 12 by 12.
I mean, if you, sorry, I don't have all the exact dimensions
of all the bedrooms, but these are gonna be families
that are gonna move into these homes, hopefully.
And they need a place to live, they need bedrooms,
and they need to have outdoor space as well.
So, you know, we did everything we could
to accommodate our neighbors
and get the right amount of square footage
to make a project that's feasible to build.
So I can, you know, I'll kind of stop there.
Thank you very much.
You're welcome.
Now I will now close the public hearing
and bring it back to the commission for comments.
Or a motion.
I would like to make a comment about the density
is our hands are tied by that by the state legislature
that have dictated the bonus process
and the entire process of why we're so tight, shall we say.
So other commissioners?
I just think it's important to understand the interplay here between the developers, the neighborhood, and the city.
You know, what we're accountable as commissioners is to make sure that whatever is proposed by private industry meets standards or meets state laws.
We don't decide to build or not to build.
That is for a developer to build and to come forward.
And we're grateful when they do because we need more housing in Walnut Creek.
But our job is to really look at are we meeting standards and does it meet the zoning rules and so
We're carefully looking at that. So just it's an interesting interplay. I just want to make that comment
Commissioner ward looks like you ready. Sure
Um, so as we we keep mentioning there there is a huge housing shortage and a need for housing at all price levels in walnut creek
I think that I'm impressed with the hard work that city staff did to work with the developer and the neighbors to
modify
this plan to try and accommodate all the different interests that that were happening and I
I think that it appears there's been some significant drainage drainage upgrades and other
considerations taken with regard to that which is
always a big concern in our older neighborhoods that weren't designed for that kind of density perhaps
So it looks like we're getting quite a few new units
and one more affordable unit.
It doesn't count as affordable, right?
It's medium affordable, is that what we're calling it?
I don't know.
Moderate, moderate, okay.
All in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.
But overall, this seems to be,
while different than what was there before,
it is addressing a significant need
and we do need to have more housing in our community
to reduce our environmental footprint on the community
generally, to reduce people's commutes,
to try and encourage people to live where they're also
going to school and shopping and supporting our downtown
and the like.
So I think there's that positive benefit as well as having
new community members who can bring their skills and talents
and selves to the community and make it a richer and more
vibrant place to live as well.
So I appreciate all the work that's been done
to make this the best project it can be
and to comply with all the very complicated requirements
from all different areas that were going into it.
I wanted, so I'm very happy to see that there has been,
there's a lot of neighbors who are here
to express their thoughts tonight on this project.
I'm very happy to see the work that has been done
with the city staff and the developers
in order to make this project feasible
and as well as to address the housing needs
in Walnut Creek.
I did want to speak a little bit to the idea
of what creates a charm in neighborhoods.
As someone who is relatively new to the city,
I currently live in a neighborhood
that's currently of zoning
and do have a similar situation behind my house
where they built townhomes
much more densely than the original lots.
Okay, I'll speak into the mic more, is this better?
OK, great, because I am hard of hearing myself.
I do want to make sure you can understand me.
So I think when I came to Walnut Creek,
I moved into a house where we had
front homes behind it, very similar to the ones
that were like this.
And so I definitely understand the concerns about privacy,
about how close the houses are to the fences, the setbacks,
things like that, as well as the charm of the neighborhood.
And so what I found is, yes, it does feel a lot more close
than I was used to from places I've lived elsewhere.
But it also means there's an opportunity
to meet new neighbors and to discover people
who welcomed me to the neighborhood of Walnut Creek.
As someone who's setting roots down here,
getting to know people, I find that Walnut Creek
is a very welcoming community, and I
am happy to see the neighbors that I haven't known before
get to know me, say hi to me as I go to work every day,
get to know what I'm doing, how I'm doing in my life
as a young person in Walnut Creek,
especially since a lot of these residents
have been in this neighborhood for a long time,
similar to all of you here.
So I value the charm that comes from the community,
from neighbors who are willing to say hi,
and people who appreciate that change is an opportunity
to be a welcoming neighbor, to say,
here's the best of Walnut Creek.
It may not necessarily be from the housing
in the neighborhood, but more so from the strength
of the community that welcomes people who move here.
That's what I wanted to share.
OK.
Thank you.
One more.
Sorry.
I did want to review the plans in detail before.
And I did want to address some of the public comments
just to put people at ease because I get it.
Density is changing.
Regarding the trees.
And I can't remember who it was with, right here, yeah.
You had a concern about how will the trees be preserved
and the root line.
I am not an arborist, but the one thing that I did note
is that when I reviewed the grading plan,
it seems like the civil engineer CBG went to great effort
to try to keep the existing elevations roughly the same
and that is the best thing that you can do
from a grading perspective to save trees.
So that was one important thing that I noticed
as you were discussing.
Because trees, those redwood trees did not grow overnight.
So I did want to, and I don't know if that was on purpose
to the CBG folks out there, but I did notice that,
that they went to great lengths.
The other thing that I noticed about the grading
was also that they tried not to do a lot of fill
to elevate the site.
And so I went, I think there was a lot of effort
with regards to, because then that would have
then pushed the height of the buildings even taller.
So that was another thing that I noticed.
So there was some pretty intricate grading
because as the engineer had said,
you need to provide overland release,
meaning that if every single inlet got plugged,
The engineer just told us that all the water,
naturally, gravity goes out,
and they're not depending on a storm drain system.
So to me, that made me feel so much better
to know that if something happened,
because that is a natural low point.
And now I understand why it's picking up other areas.
And then I heard, I hear about the three feet.
And one thing that I noticed is the efficiency
for the architecture of the home.
The architecture is, so the building from width to width
is 31 feet wide.
And so it's literally, usually it's dictated by the garage.
And they have a tiny little opening into the house
because it's a stair.
Because that was also something I wanted to see is I understand
that you can physically preclude.
Sorry, you use the waivers as a reductions
if it would physically preclude the proposed density.
But that was one thing that I did notice
was that there was the efficiency and the planning.
And so I think there was a lot of thought from Dolan
to not make, because when you have the sizes of homes,
they're typically wider.
So I did look at that.
There was one other, and then I think you guys
are missing a waiver of the building height in here,
because they did ask for a waiver of the height.
And then there was a comment about fire.
That's right.
So the reason I asked about the building height
because fire code is very, very stringent
on needing aerial apparatus access.
And so that's why I asked about the building height
to make sure that from the fire road width
And what kind of fire safety would be needed so the fact that they kept it under the 35 feet
That made me feel a little bit better because then I realized okay, there is more density
But at the very least it's not the eaves are underneath the 35 feet
So you're bypassing an entire aerial apparatus access that would be needed from the fire department
So I'm anyways, I don't know if that helped or not
But I we're hearing you and so I just want to make sure to to provide that
Feedback that I saw as an engineer on on the plans. I'll stop talking
Thank you, and I would like to thank the neighbors for coming out tonight and explaining your concerns
Question I'm sorry you are past your time
We can't reopen the public indications
applicant right now and I also thank the staff for bringing us the best possible
project for the location as they could and looking for a motion now are we
missing a waiver on paragraph nine so I am reviewing I'm looking at the
attachment five that's the applicants that's the applicants request yeah so
the the height in residential zones is 25 feet you can ask for an additional
four feet if you provide a roof pitch of three twelve or greater which gets you
to 29 feet so they're under that at 28 and they don't yes you don't need to
have that list they don't need it they're consistent with yes they're
consistent with the residential eight height standards okay thank you sorry I
was reading the state density bonus letter and there they said the proposed
maximum height is 30 that's why I got confused I'm sorry okay okay I'd like to
move that we so I'm sorry so it so is the request 30 feet not 28 it's not okay
I just want to make that clear on the record that they're not doing that well
it does it does say that the proposed maximum height is 30 feet but as I'm
hearing from right I'm having one draw they're actually proposing at 28 okay
so they're consistent yeah and if you make a motion it's based on the
Re-vised.
Correct.
Applicant.
All right.
Now I'm going to make a motion to approve the draft resolution
as revised, major subdivision density bonuses,
I review tree removal and tree drip line encroachment permits
application number Y24-051 1948 Third Avenue.
Second.
Will the secretary please call the roll.
And with the revised, it also includes the added condition
approval as noted in the presentation before you. That's included in the
document we were given. Car so there is a revised resolution it's on the dais
and it's also online so that's the motion that's what you're voting on.
Correct. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Kwok. Yes. Commissioner Ward. Yes. Commissioner
clock yes commissioner nating yes chair strongman yes motion passes thank you and moving on to
commission considerations do we have any is that where i tell you about transpec
yes no one more one more now do we have any commission considerations oh so i wanted to
add that I will be joining the working group on the updates to the sign ordinance and the design
guidelines as the representative from the Planning Commission, so I'll share any major milestones or
updates with you all as that project progresses. Okay, and hi, again thank you for appointing me
to TRANSPAC. I did attend the first substantive meeting of that group and some of the topics that
that I think are of interest to us are the daylighting law,
which has gone into effect in all the cities
which prohibits parking within 20 feet
of any intersection marked or unmarked.
Walnut Creek's doing quite a bit of work in that area,
but there was a presentation around the county
of the work that's being done to improve safety.
There also is a Contra Costa Countywide
comprehension transportation safety action plan
to reduce accidents,
and also a county-wide emergency evacuation plan
that's being developed under Caltrans grant, so.
Thank you.
Anything else for this?
Okay, moving on to commission.
Member or staff reports and acknowledgments.
And I'd like to mention that three of us
are going to go to Santa Rosa
to the Planning Commission conference next week.
So, anyone else?
Any other comments?
I would just like to thank the Planning Commission.
It's been an amazing year and a half plus.
This will be my last Plan Commission meeting,
and Chip Griffin, who's in the audience,
will be taking over as Plan Commission Secretary.
So I just want to thank you all, thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you for your service.
And we thank you, yes, and we thank you very much.
Yeah, we want to thank you.
You've been really amazing,
and it's just been a pleasure to work with you,
so thank you for that.
And with that, I believe we're adjourned.