Thank you we are welcome to the Planning Commission and Design Review joint meeting a special meeting to discuss
Overview of a B 130 and SP 131 changes on the planning review process
Call a roll
Went to the planning commission person. Thank you chair for Planning Commission role
Commissioner Moran has indicated he will be absent tonight. So Commissioner count
Here mr. Strongman here mr. Quarke here mr. Klopp here vice chair nighting here chair Anderson here
design review Commission
Commissioner Riley here commissioner case
Vice chair basing and chair Newsom is a no-show
We do have a quorum, okay. Thank you
the second item of the agenda is public communications because this is a special meeting public communication that only can only be related to this
to this topic
So excuse me
Because
Public communications probably related will be related to this topic. We're going to hold the
presentation first
Educate everybody and then public communications will be come after we've had that presentation
so then we come to
Training regarding the new CEQA exemptions under AB 130 SP 131. We have a staff report
Yes, we do but before we do that. I'd like to just just give a shout out to
Commissioner Gorny a longtime design review commissioner is in the audience tonight to learn something new about CEQA
Just want to tip my cap Joseph was a great did a lot of great things for the city
that said
some commissioners in response to the
Governor signing of Assembly bill 130 and Senate bill 131
Have asked to get trained up so to speak on on how these two bills affect sequa
our city attorney's office Claire lie has kind enough to put together a
presentation that does a few things or does does more than just that it kind of gives a primer to sequel itself and and
kind of a just a basic
Sequo primer to get into what these things do or or help set up
Help set help set up the scene for projects and things that are subject to sequel. So that said we'll just get right into it
Thank you chip. Good evening chair
commissioners
So yes, so you're today. I like to talk to you about
These two budget trailer bills that does a number of things but tonight we're going to focus on their changes to
one the actually planning review process and to the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA
So we thought it'd be helpful to before we get into what's actually in the bills to go over a little bit about what is a housing
about a project because the changes introduced by those bills that we're talking about tonight
relate mostly to how housing projects are reviewed and how their potentially can be
exempt under CEQA.
And so we're going to talk a little bit about what is a housing development project as that
term is used in the various state housing laws and then the process for reviewing such
a project.
And then we'll give an overview about what the CEQA review process entails.
I know some of you worked very closely with CEQA and have expertise in that area, so this
will be a very high-level overview.
It's not going to speak to the details, but we're happy to answer those questions, but
this is intended to give you some background so we can better explain the changes.
And then we'll go into the one, the new CEQA changes under AB 130 and SB 131, and then
how that in turn changes along with the amendments brought by AB 130 the land use review aspects of it.
So we'll get right into it onto housing development projects. So a housing development project you
might hear a lot about the HAA, SB 330, the Permistry Lining Act. Those those state laws
govern what we what is shown on the screen here as defines a housing development project.
That is one residential unit,
so that's typically more than two units.
A mixed use project, so both residential and non-residential
with two-thirds of the floor area
or development area for residential.
Some large mixed use projects has over 500 units
and meeting certain demolition criteria.
And also transitional and supportive housing
and farm worker housing.
So those five sets of project description,
they constitute what the law treats as housing development
project and what the state housing laws treat
as it requires findings, able to streamline it.
It gets the new CEQA exemption under these new bills.
And also, the primary state laws that
govern housing development projects
are the Housing Accountability Act,
which mostly deals with the substance of the review,
and as well as Senate Bill 330 slash
the Permit Streamlining Act
which deals with the process of reviewing a project.
So from the submittal of the application,
when it comes in, how long does the city have
to process the application and the procedural steps
in treating the project?
So the first concept we wanna talk about
is the SB 330 preliminary application.
This is a new tool that's introduced in 2019 or so
that gives the housing development project the ability to send in to the
city a preliminary application that is going to vest the applicable standards
regulation at the time of the submittal and this is a very simple submittal
it's just 17 items in the statute if the preliminary application provides it it's
considered submitted and the city is not able to apply standards or regulations
that are adopted or created after that submittal.
The law has certain provisions about how to maintain this what we call vesting the maintenance
of your development standards and your ability to be subject to the then in effect standards.
So one, the preliminary application will expire if the project is changed after the submittal
by more than 20% in square footage or units.
So they have a lower than 20% they can make the change, but if you change your projects,
substantially more than that, then you have to submit a new preliminary application.
And again, the purpose of this submittal is to freeze zoning, development, subdivision,
design standards are in effect at the time of submittal.
There's some minor exceptions like a fee adjustment or like a CEQA mitigation measure, as we'll
talk about later.
Mostly it's to freeze development standards,
so it gives people certainty as to what standards will apply.
And also, with C staff, about what the city can apply
for the project.
Again, the application, the preliminary application
after it's submitted, the applicant has 180 days
to submit a full development application.
So what that means is that the city of Long Creek
has, like other cities, a planning application checklist.
And it says, if you wanted to get a design review,
You want to apply for CUP, you want to apply for some other entitlement, you got to submit
these documents.
So the applicant has to provide that based on the checklist and within six months from
their preliminary application submittal to maintain that vesting and so they don't have
to start over.
So once the preliminary application, or sorry, once the formal application comes in, then
the Permit Streamlining Act kicks in and again this is the procedural requirements and talks
about kind of expeditiously reviewing and telling applicants, you know, what is in your
application, what is missing, what is still required. So once the application comes in,
the city has 30 days to decide if it's complete and that means is it providing all the items
that's on the application checklist that I was talking about. So the city has 30 days
decide if that's complete and if it's not, the city sends an applicant a comment letter.
That's what staff does here, sends a comment letter and saying, you know, you're missing
this report, you're missing this drawing, this plan, please give it to us.
And then the applicant has 30 days to bring that information back, or they typically bring
it back within 30 days, but that cycle kind of just resets every time they resubmit and
and we inform them if it's complete
until the application is actually complete
with all the things on the checklist.
And the important thing to know from this
is that if the city misses that 30 day timeline,
the application is deemed to be complete.
So the city is legally not able to ask the applicant
for the additional information.
So it's very important to keep in mind that timeline
as the city reviews the application.
So next, once the application is complete, the city will review for consistency with
applicable standards.
So here comes the Housing Accountability Act, and it has a requirement about when the city
has to tell the applicant if the project is consistent with applicable standards.
So depending on how many units are in the project, if it's 150 units or less, it's
30 days from receipt of the complete application.
Or it's more than that in 60 days.
Practically speaking, the city does it,
does this review the same time
as a complete application review.
So the common letter will say,
you're missing these things from the checklist,
but also, we wanted to let you know,
you gotta do the traffic study,
or you gotta design the traffic turnout a certain way.
You gotta, you know, your height doesn't comply,
or your density doesn't comply.
So it has that progressing concurrently in reality,
but this is the timeline to do the consistency review.
And if the city does not respond within that timeline,
again, the project is deemed to be consistent.
So again, that makes it difficult for the city
to later say your project doesn't comply with our standard
and you must revise it.
So again, that's important to keep in mind.
And then finally, at the time of the decision,
the city, if the project complies with what we refer
to as objective standards.
And that is, as many of you are familiar,
the city has gone through an extensive process
of adopting objective design standards.
And that's standards that do not require any personal judgment.
it doesn't require discretion, it's basically you can,
somebody can come and decide,
compare it to a benchmark that everybody knows
and is published and you can say, for example,
like height, that's objective standard,
it's comparable against the number.
And so it doesn't require any discretion
on the behalf of the person making the decision.
So the project complies with objective standards.
The cities in the city is deciding
that it would deny the project
or lower the project density.
then it has to make a finding that there is a specific adverse impact that cannot be feasibly
mitigated without denying or lower the density. As you can see here, this is a pretty significant
threshold because it's got to be a significant direct unavoidable and it has to be based on
an objective standard that's already written down at the time of the preliminary activation
submittal. So the burden is on the city to show by preponderance of the evidence
that means 50% of the evidence in the record supports the finding that you
know there's a need basically to deny the project or lower than city of it. So
that is the overview of how the housing development project comes through to the
city from submittal to the decision point. But before the city makes a
decision it's got to comply with provisions of CEQA. And so when does that
apply? Whenever the city is making a decision on a discretionary project and
that's pretty broadly defined that's any action development project or similar
activity that the city commits to or approves and there are common examples
like a CUP, a tentative map, a development agreement, you know a general plan
amendment, zoning amendment, those are all common examples of a project. What is not
a project for purposes of CEQA is one ministerial projects, so that's SB 9, ADU,
building permits, grading permits, and corrosion permits. So anything that does
not require a city to exercise discretion and it's simply just checking
off the list and making sure that it complies with the department and it's
approved. Also activities that have no possibility of a significant
environmental effect they're also not considerate project so you know for
example hiring a new employee is not there's no possibility of an
environmental fact is not making physical changes that's not a project
the purposes of CEQA and finally projects are denied or rejected by the
city this is pretty self-explanatory if you deny project you know obviously you
don't determine what the environmental impacts are and CEQA comes from the
authority is from statute under the public resources code and also there are
guidelines put together by the state that's in the code of regulations but
those together they form this body of law with environmental review. So what
are the steps in review in CEQA review? As we talked about is the project
subject to CEQA and if so is the project exempt from CEQA? There is generally two
types of exemptions one is called statutory exemptions those are created
by the legislature they're codified either either in the public resources
code or in some other body of law. Typically they're more defensible
because the court will defer to the intent of the legislature to say like
these types of projects we decide are you know not significant enough to warn
environmental review. So that's statutory exemptions, and then there's what's called
categorical exemptions, and those are in the CEQA guidelines. They're developed by
the state, and they are, because they are not statutory, there's a little bit more
limitations. For example, the guidelines say that if there's unusual
circumstances, that's particular to a project, then you don't get to use a
CEQA exemption, you have to do a further environmental analysis. And so if there's
no exemption that can apply, then we look at what environmental analysis
documents should be prepared. And I'm going to talk about three kind of the
main types of CEQA documents. Those are prepared by the city as what you call
the lead agency in a project. And as the first step, the city will do an initial
study, and this is a document that determines what level of impact the
project will have on the environment, and you'll ask how do you know what
factors to look for. The CEQA guidelines has a number of
appendices and it has environmental factors that's listed, and so what we most
often see is Appendix G that lists a number of factors, you know, air quality,
traffic or transportation, noise, water quality, utilities, energy. So, it has a
number of factors and the study goes through them and analyzes whether or not
the project, you know, has the potential of creating significant effects on the
environment based on those factors. If the project doesn't have the potential
to do that or if there are impacts but they can be reduced to less than
significant as the CEQA term, that's a CEQA term of art, but if that's the case
then the city prepares what's called a negative declaration if there's no
mitigation that's required or it prepares a mitigated negative
declaration which the difference is just the latter talks about how those
potentially significant impacts can be mitigated or reduced to a lesser level
with those measures. So if these initial study concludes that there's more severe
impacts or for some larger projects the city knows from the start that you know
if more a higher level of review is required then it will prepare what's
called an environmental impact report or an EIR. The legal standard for requiring
this is that if there's a fair argument that's supported by substantial evidence
in the record, and that means there's enough evidence to support that fair argument regardless
of whether or not there's opposing or contrary evidence.
So if there's that, then an ER is required and you have to analyze the project's effect
on the environment.
This is the highest level of environmental analysis that is, that can be done.
The mitigation measures are required.
have to there's a number of rules about what's has to be in EIR what has to you
know what what review has to do so this is the highest level you know it's it's
the most risk-averse in terms of CEQA analysis but the bottom line is that the
city has to make the CEQA finding and determination before approving or
committing to a project and so in your staff reports or resolutions you'll see
that the CEQA findings comes first if you're making a motion the CEQA motion
comes first because the city has to make that determination before it actually
goes on with the project itself. So turning back tying these two together
CEQA has some impacts on when the city is required to approve or deny a
project so the Permit String Mining Act again that's the procedural rules about
project review, it requires the city to approve or deny a project 180 days from EIR certification
or 60 to 90 days for housing projects and 60 days from adoption of a negative declaration
or an MND and 60 days from an exemption determination.
And just to be clear, this applies to all kinds of projects, all kinds of developments
in addition to housing but as you can see there's some expedited times for housing projects
if you were to do an EIR. So that is the background and overview so we're now going to go into
what AB 130 and SB 131 brings. First we'll talk about changes to CEQA and one of the
most significant changes from AB 130 is the new CEQA exemption for urban infill housing.
This is a statutory exemption.
It is grounded in the public resources code, so it's, again, the courts will defer to it
because that's the legislature's intent.
To qualify for this exemption, you have to be on a housing development project and you
have to meet the criteria that's outlined on the screen.
There is a size requirement for the project site.
It has to be less than or equal to 20 acres.
Or if it's a Beldash Army project,
then it's five acres or less.
It has to locate within an incorporated city
or an urbanized area,
but that's practically all of California.
But it cannot locate on any sensitive lands.
And this is a similar concept to SB 35,
where the statute lists number of locations,
like wetlands, national parks, conservation easement,
or hazardous material sites.
So you can't be on any of those lands
in order to utilize the exemption.
The use has to be what's called urban use,
and that's also pretty broad.
It's residential, commercial, pretty much anything
other than open space, I believe.
The project has to be consistent with the terrain plant
zoning so if two is not consistent if you can you're consistent with one then
you're consistent with the other. The project can rely on density bonus as you
know density bonus if the project is eligible to receive that density bonus
which is a statue that allows affordable housing providers to get additional
units. With the receipt of density bonus the project can get waivers and
concessions from development standards. So the project is able to receive a
density bonus and uses a waiver to override a city standards. They're still
considered consistent with the general plan or zoning. Or the project is a
builder's remedy. They're also likely to be able to use that to qualify as
being consistent with the general plan or zoning. The project also has to provide the
the statutory density, which is at least 50%
of the minimum density under housing element law,
and that for Walnut Creek is 30 dwelling units per acre.
So practically, a project would have to provide
15 units, 15 dwelling units per acre in order to qualify.
And then a project has to avoid demolishing
historic structures on historic registers,
and they cannot include uses as a hotel
if the project basically, after this year,
you cannot include a hotel use in order to qualify.
So what happens if the project qualifies for the exemption
because they meet those criteria?
One, the city has to conduct tribal consultation.
There's a set of rules about what that means.
Basically, it has to be meaningful consultation.
There's the engagement with the tribes,
meaningful conversation for a specific period of time.
And if the tribe and the city result in agreement
about certain mitigation measures,
or how certain activities have to be carried out,
those things have to be included as conditions of approval
for the project.
And on the developer's side, one,
there has to be a phase one environmental site
assessment done.
And this is basically a study to kind of see
There's how there's material, site conditions.
It's a little bit less than what,
or more focused than what a CEQA analysis would do,
but it's basically looking at site conditions
similar to what you would do before you buy a property.
So that has to be done.
And that can likely be a condition of approval
on the project, because it just says
that they have to complete it,
but it doesn't, you know, it doesn't say when.
So, but they have to do it.
Or if the project is within 500 feet
of a freeway, there has to be some design elements
incorporated.
So I think they can't have a balcony that phases the freeway.
They have to have some height and design elements incorporated.
And then finally, if the project is 100% affordable
or it's over 85 feet, there is some prevailing wages
and union labor standards that have to be met.
And so turning to SB 131, unlike AB 130,
which exemption is for housing, the new exemptions
that are under SB 131 are for a variety of projects.
And again, these are also statutory exemptions.
So again, very deferential.
And they cover specific types of projects.
One that's of more interest recently
is the rezoning to implement a housing
many jurisdictions now are completing their rezonings to you know to increase
multi-family zones or to upzone certain properties to satisfy their housing
elements so that's exempt from CEQA. We've had other cities where projects
ongoing with child care preschools that utilize this exemption for for child care
infrastructure and also public parks and recreational trails is another one.
And then I'm going to shift back to AB 130 because the bill also creates this
other CEQA tool. It's not an exemption but it's more of a streamlined review
because it provides that if a project almost qualifies for an exemption it
it gets to go through a reduced SQL level review.
So this is referred to as the single condition
or the near miss provision.
It's available to housing projects only.
And it basically says if the project would otherwise qualify
for the exemption but for a single condition,
then you can have a limited environmental review.
So the review is only limited to the facts
that are caused by that condition.
So for example, with the new infill assumption
we just talked about, the project has to be 20 acres or less.
If the project is 25 acres, then the review is,
does that five acre create some additional impact?
So it's very limited.
And again, if you do an EIR,
it's only requiring a limited analysis.
It's not expansive, and it's not costing as much money
to do that.
And there are some criteria to qualify
for the single condition streamlined review.
One has to be a housing project.
It has to be similar and kind to the listed exemptions.
So if they're trying to use a child care infrastructure
exemption, they can't, or sorry, not that one,
but if they're trying to use the infill exemption
for urban projects, they have to be similar
to what that exemption is entailing.
It cannot include any oil, gas infrastructure,
or distribution centers.
And again, it cannot locate on those sensitive areas,
natural protected lands.
And then it can only miss one condition
of a CEQA exemption.
So if it has two, then it doesn't qualify.
So just what do these changes mean?
One, there's new options for shorter CEQA review.
New exemptions, of course.
And then the streamlining for the almost qualify.
Provision, I expect that would be very useful
because we've, a lot of cases where, you know,
a project almost qualifies for an exemption,
but, you know, for that one condition,
you have to go for, before the streamline came through,
you have to go through a further environmental review
that's very time consuming, costly,
and so that's gonna be very useful.
Projects are ongoing that not yet been approved.
They can take advantage of these exemptions
these provisions if they qualify.
And then the SEQA shorter SEQA review potentially means shorter time frames under the PSA.
So that leads us to the land use changes under AB 130.
And the main one or the first one we're going to talk about is the changes to the timeline
for approval under the PSA.
Well, first the law is now very clear that it applies, that the PSA applies to ministerial
projects.
There is some confusion previously because the previous statute had said that the PSA
timelines don't apply to projects that don't require discretion, but some provisions were
changed by the SB 9 and the five hearing rules for SB 330 to say that it
covers all types of housing so there is some confusions about that but now that
has been cleared up and PSA applies to miniature projects if it requires a
planning entitlement from the city so that means you know a project comes in
it requires some kind of design review or requires the planning department to
give clearance before it moves on to building permit then that would be
subject to the PSA. So then the bill asks two additional deadlines to
approve or deny a project. Recall we had those lists from 180 days to 60 days
depending on when you do sequel and what type of sequel action is done. Now there
There is a 60-day deadline from receiving a complete application from ministerial projects.
And recall that ministerial projects don't require CEQA, so this is a timeline for when
the project comes in.
You've got to approve or deny it within 60 days.
And then with that new urban infill exemption, there is a 30-day timeline to approve or deny
from the conclusion of the tribal consultation.
So recall that the city has to do tribal consultation when the project comes in and it qualifies
for the infill exemption under AB 130.
From the conclusion of the consultation, you have 30 days to approve and deny it.
And then just to note that the permit streamlining act still doesn't apply if there's no planning
entitlement, meaning it just goes straight to a building permit or it's, you know, just
requires grading permit and crosium permit,
demolition permits, those still don't apply.
So, just continuing on about the tribal consultation
approval requirement.
This is not super clear in the statute
because it's a bit vague about when the timelines stop
and start or what happens if you need additional information
from the applicant.
First off, if the project applicant notifies the city
that it is eligible for this infill exemption under AB 130,
the city has to request the consultation within 14 days
from notification.
The tribe has 60 days to request consultation.
And if they do request it, then that consultation
has to finish within at most 60 days
because you're first given 45 days
and you could extend it to an extra 15 days.
So it's a total of 60 days at most.
So what happens is that after that conclusion you have 30 days to approve or deny the project.
So that means it's a lot shorter time frame for the city.
And it's not clear if, you know, what does it mean when an applicant notifies the city?
What do they have to provide for the city to say, are you eligible for the exemption?
And what if they notify the city and the city says, oh, we don't think you're eligible for
the exemption.
to provide x and you didn't provide it. So it's not clear what that means. I think the
statue is very linear in thinking about, you know, the project just comes one step after
the other. It's a really factor in what happens if there's clarity that's needed from the
applicant or additional information. And then the second set of change also to the
the Permetry Money Act is that the timelines in that law apply only if it's equal to or
shorter than the timelines in other law.
So for example, the ADU statutes say that you have to approve or deny within 60 days
from complete application, or the SB 9 says the same thing.
So you have to comply with those timelines instead of a longer timeline under the PSA
that's the case. And then another potentially significant change is that
the new bill removes what we call a developer notice for projects that would
be deemed approved. So if the city does not comply with the decision-making
timelines in the PSA, the project is automatically considered to be approved
by operation of law. But previously that remedy only kicks in and the developer
gives notice. So it has to first post a public notice to the city that you know
you're failing to comply with the PSA and the city gets an opportunity to
hold a hearing on the project. But now that provision has been removed and so
if the city you know fails to comply with those timelines we just talked
about the project can be deemed approved by operation of law without that actual layer
and extra time for the city to respond to it.
So then now it becomes more important that the city does not miss those time frames.
Just the final implications about what these all mean, shorter processing approval timelines
for ministerial projects, for residential projects, some non-resident projects, and
the deemed approved nominee applies without additional notice, so it's very important
that the city tracks these timelines very closely to avoid lapsing and avoid being late.
And again, we should not forget that additional deadlines may apply or additional limits,
such as the five hearing rule under SB 330.
So it's important to kind of pay attention to how those laws also interact.
I'll say that Walnut Creek is very advanced in this regard, you know, it has taken a lot
of steps to adopt objective standards, to streamline and to kind of arrange the level
of review required for different types of projects.
So the city is on good grounds to, you know, kind of expedite things and streamline things
and response to these changes, but these are still the consideration in the planning review
process.
And so, that is my presentation, and if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.
Okay.
Let me, before we get into questions from the commissioners, I'd like to open up the
public communications so that other people can make comments before we get into the discussion
among the commissioners.
So if there are members of the public that would like to comment, normally I would ask
you to fill out a speaker slip, but I don't believe we have any here.
So if you would, can we go to the podium?
Hi.
So if you, yeah, is the podium free?
Okay.
All right.
And yeah, if you could just give your name so we know who you are.
Okay.
All right.
Hello.
I'm a resident here in Walnut Creek. Thank you very much for this presentation. I would love to learn more about
what the city of Walnut Creek consider
more attention to
Reducing noise pollution given that there's a 12 lane freeway that runs through your entire city
so for example
So much of the residential dwelling units on Jones Road alone are completely subject to the freeway and
It's not an issue of the white noise of the road of the cars. It's the
Frequently infrequent very disruptive
aftermarket
Something like that perfect perfect
And it's just it's really disruptive from like a sleep quality perspective or just like a noise pollution is really serious to me
It's extremely disruptive, and I would hope that
The city of Walnut Creek would take that into consideration and consider
Sound beer after the fact I know so much of Walnut Creek is already built up
I went to the ccta meeting they were saying go talk to Caltrans Caltrans is saying go talk to ccta
So who knows what the sort of truth is, but I would appreciate it if the city of Walnut Creek would
Support this and and and just kind of keep this on your radar. Thank you
No one else public would like to speak
Very good
Bring back to the Commission then and people have additional questions. There will be a quiz later. So
If you didn't miss anything
or
comments on the presentation
Mr. Strongman
Thank you for the presentation. And would you explain the tribes which tribes are we contacting?
And why I was this is news to me
Well, I can give a first answer then maybe chip elaborate
So there's a requirements about tribes
that are culturally traditionally affiliated
with the region.
So there is a list, I believe the city maintains
and we can talk about that.
So I was expecting this to come up,
but in what we, the previous practice was to,
in response to AB 52, which was from what, 2015 ish,
which would require us to do more than just send a project
to the Sonoma State, NAHCA, Native American Heritage
Commission, which is what we used to do.
And then they would distribute the plans.
And if there was any interest, we
would get a email or a phone call or a letter.
AB 52 required us to go actually to the tribes
and send these projects out.
And if they requested a consultation,
and we would have to negotiate that consultation.
There are 15 tribes that the city of Walnut
that has, I don't know, jurisdiction
probably is not the right word, but can request consultation
within the city of Walnut Creek.
And we have a list, and we keep in touch.
There are certain requirements on how to and how not
to conduct business with the tribes.
What's confusing in this one is that the law says that staff must provide or carry out
consultation with the tribes and I think the intent was to inquire with the tribes and
see if they would like to request a consultation.
Do you see any merit in that?
Because we don't request consultation with the tribe.
They request consultation with the city.
So, it's unclear to me in that law and how that works.
But in any case, we have to reach out to all 15 tribes.
A follow-up question, how many have actually
requested consultation in recent projects?
One recent project, we had consultations,
a video consultation, Zoom, with two tribes.
And what project was that?
That would be the Mitchell Townhomes.
I think I'll just add is that the statue,
it doesn't say what happens if the city and tribe
doesn't agree.
It just says, if agreement is reached,
then you have to condition a project on those measures.
So presumably, if they don't agree, in the 60 days up,
you have to move on with the project.
And so that's another consideration.
Yeah.
Just to follow up to that, when you
are having that consultation with the tribes,
what are the sort of public reporting requirements
about that?
Does it need to be an open meeting?
Do the results need to be reported out
to the public in some way?
Sort of like the Brown Act, or is there something
that sets requirements around?
Consultation itself is public.
The city, of course, if it concludes
and then there's measures to follow up from that,
that's of course public, because you have to condition that
for the project, or you make it a mitigation measure.
but it's not, I mean, from a, we don't,
I don't think we advertise it
or we hold a public hearing on that.
It's just, you know, we did not, right?
We don't do that, but you know, that conversation,
I mean, if anyone requests, it's probably public
unless there's some confidential information in there,
but generally it's the results that's made public.
So who do the results go to?
Like where, at what part in the process are those results seen?
So, Claire mentioned Appendix G. That's the checklist that's generally used to determine
or to take a look, a precursory look to see if there might be any potentially significant
impacts.
One of those categories are cultural or is in regards to cultural issues and some of
them are program or operational and the other ones are construction. And the tribes are
really interested in construction. So if there is grading on the project, you will automatically
check potentially significant. And if there is, and then you go through the process and
you can determine on whether or not based on history and what the tribes know, that
there may be or there isn't potential to find some cultural artifacts, you know, during
a grading exercise.
So what they would typically do then is become a mitigation measure, which has really become
a standard mitigation measure.
It's almost a condition of approval if you have a project that doesn't have a CEQA document,
an MND, say it's an exemption.
So typically, the answer to your question is it would be a mitigation measure in an
MND or an EIR to bring that potentially significant down to not significant.
Vice Chair?
Would it be helpful if I gave you an example?
So in the South Bay, Tamian Nation is very prevalent, and so what they require instead
of just saying if you find something notify the applicant or the developer
has to pay the tribe every single day to be there during the entirety of the
construction. Or which is a lot of money or they have to pay honor to certain
elements which have meaning so then there's a you know maybe a crest or
something that's put in honor of something that comes about but chip is
right the most thing the thing that I've seen is to be to pay to be present
during grading all ground disturbing operations.
So you're talking about like the site needs to be paved
at that point, and then the payment to the tribes stop.
Like that's typically what I've seen.
And I would add that those items are part of a negotiation.
Other questions or comments?
Vice Chair Neill?
had a question about the near miss well actually the first question is it says
rely on density bonus so I know we have to do 50% so you know how density you
know how density bonus now has like a double what we can do 50% we can
actually double the entire density because there's that provision probably
closer. Is it closer? Yeah. Don't be afraid. I feel like it was making noises. I forget about provision, it's all the way at the bottom of 65915 or whatever density
bonuses. So then could that that's the part in the that confused me. So someone
could not meet the land use density but then use the bonus units in
density units to get to the 50 percent of the applicable minimum density?
Well, if you had density requirements, you would meet the density requirements.
You could use the waivers from the density variance to override.
And this is relating to the infill exemption.
So yeah, because I think that's the one bullet point thing
confusing because if you have to be consistent with so say
that because we have a lot of single family density in Walnut
Creek that is not 15 billion units per acre, right?
It's less than that, three to five billion units per acre.
but if someone decides to do a double density bonus
where they double the entire density
and then they get it up to 15,
do the bonus units count towards the density
to make it consistent with the land use
to then use AB 130?
Yeah, I could see that,
but density bonus require five units plus.
So, you know, so if you were just one unit,
you probably wouldn't be able to do that.
But if a smaller project,
you're small enough that you, you know, practically you could propose that many density, the base
units plus density.
Suppose the bonus.
Right.
You could, yeah, theoretically you could use it to meet the standards that you don't meet
because of the waivers and then you could probably, yeah, you could probably meet the
density requirements for the 50 percent.
And I don't think 130 actually mentions base density.
It just says density.
Yeah, it just says density.
It doesn't say base density, it doesn't say base density.
That's interesting.
So the base, it could be, so it would be the,
as we see base and bonus together.
It's as applicable.
So whichever one you're using, I don't think.
And then for the near miss or the single miss,
except for one qualifying item.
So then as a planning commission would then we see,
so then it would be the typical,
cause we a lot of stuff that comes to us
is a cat 32 exemption, right?
Ton of the stuff that comes to us,
except for Mitchell, obviously.
But then, so then for those properties,
if there was one, would you just do then,
would then what would come to us is an exemption document
plus just a limited environmental for that one miss?
Yeah, I would imagine, so, you know,
if they're relying on say the infill,
the traditional infill class 32 exemption.
So that exemption requires also a bunch of things, right?
So if they-
Live acres are lost.
Right, traditionally the project would provide a checklist
to say we meet all these requirements.
So if they invoke the single condition,
let's say they don't meet general plan consistency,
we would be able to say the statute provides
a single condition streamline review
and then we would probably have analysis
that goes into what impacts
the general plan inconsistency would create.
And so together that gives you the ability to say, you know, you, you,
the project has provided its CEQA analysis and it has met the
CEQA obligations so that therefore the city doesn't need to do anything more.
The questions, comments, if not, um, thank you very much for a very
detailed presentation, um, you may get, uh, texts or calls later in the week.
What do we actually think about it?
And I think that I'll close that item.
And then the next item is Commissioned Member
and Staff Reports for Announcements.
Any from either commission?
If not, I'll move on to the next item, which is adjournment.
And therefore, we're adjourned.
So thank you all very much.
Thank you.