Good evening. Welcome to the February 12th already meeting of the all the Creek Planning Commission.
I'll ask the secretary to take the role.
Thank you, Chair.
Commissioner Moran. Here. Commissioner Kound. Here. Commissioner Strong-Wann. Here. Commissioner Kwok. Here. Commissioner Klopp. Here.
Vice Chair Knighting. Here. And Chair Anderson. Here.
Commission's all here. We have quorum. Thank you.
Do we have anything on the consent calendar tonight staff has no recommendations for consent? Okay
Then we will pass on to the public communications
Let me take a little minute to explain that because I have a hundred gonna have a lot of public communications tonight
The you have two chances two opportunities to speak if you wish
You get a chance to speak on either of the hearings when those hearings come up and on the agenda
You'll also have a chance right now during the public communications portion to comment
on anything which is not on the agenda.
So if you have something to talk about, Mitchell Townhomes or Portia, you can,
that has to wait until those hearings come up.
If you have something else to do, you can do it then.
Is there anybody who has a comment on something not on the agenda?
Seeing none.
Okay. All right.
There seems to be no one wishing to speak
in public communications.
No. It's closer.
Closer? Okay.
I would move this, but it doesn't move.
Sorry. So when the time comes,
since there's a lot of people here tonight,
just try to explain it once.
Since we don't have any comments now,
but we will have during the hearings.
When the hearing comes up, the applicant will have time
to present, I'm sorry, the staff report first,
to kind of lay out what the hearing is about.
The applicant has a chance to describe his project.
Then each of you has filled out a yellow speaker card,
it gets to speak, each of you will have two minutes.
We have a lot of cards already.
So, that will take some time, even two minutes apiece.
So, do try to be succinct in what you say.
No one is obligated to take all of their time, applicant or other speakers.
If you want to speak less, that's always welcome.
If you, if someone else has said exactly what you feel, you can say they said it right,
I believe that too, that works fine as well.
At the end, the applicant has a chance to respond to some of the comments.
And during any of those comments, the commission can ask questions of the speaker.
So I think that covers it.
We'll move along to 3B, as it were.
Disclosure of ex parte communications.
Anyone had ex parte communications this week?
Commissioner Cownd.
Yes, I did meet with representatives from Via Monte, as well as with Signature Development Group, to listen to their concerns.
Okay, what else?
I met with Signature Development Group as well, the applicant.
Okay, and Mr. Kwok.
I met with representatives from Via Monte, as well as the Signature Development Group.
And I met with representatives from Signature over Coffee, indeed, just once.
And they emailed, the signature emailed me and I did not meet with them.
Okay, very good.
Then first public hearing is on the Mitchell Townhomes Design Review.
I will note that if you are here for the Porsche item,
rest assured that it will be a while before we get to it.
You know, if you want to go out and walk around the block and
check in from time to time, that might be a better time of year.
use of your time than sitting and waiting and getting anxious. Okay, staff report.
Okay, good evening chair and members of the Commission. We are here tonight to
consider the Mitchell Townhomes project that will be located within the Shadelands
Business Park. The application number is Y24-026 and the applicant representing
this project, Jonathan Fern and his team are here tonight, as am I, to answer any
questions that you may have after the presentation, and I believe I forgot to
introduce myself, so Simmer Gil, a senior flatter with the city, and for fair
warning, this is a multifaceted project with many parts, so I appreciate your
patience in advance if this presentation does run a little longer than
usual. So I'll try my best to keep pace. And so Planning Commission tonight is
looking to certify the environmental impact report and adoption of the
Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program as well as the project
entitlements which consist of a major subdivision, design review, tree removal
and tree dripline encroachment permit, as well as a density bonus waiver request.
and just to quickly orient you with the site, it is zoned plan development with a general plan
designation of business park. It does consist of a 22 acre parcel that has 11 office buildings known
as the Walnut Creek Executive Park and the surrounding area as you can see here consists
of commercial and office uses, and there are residential uses across the site area on Shadelands,
as known as the Via Monte Senior Housing, and on Oak, on Mitchell Drive,
we have the Oakmont Senior Housing that was recently approved, so we have, hasn't been built,
but we have approved a housing project here.
And then further east along Oak Grove there are residential uses known as the
Woodlands community. And this is just a closer look at that of the site, the
project site in question. It is outlined in that yellow and all of these
buildings within that yellow outline will be demolished for project
construction. The adjacent parcels consist of a three-story office building
that is fronting Oak Grove Road, Bank of America at the corner of Shailance and
Oak Grove as well as the existing daycare. These are all separate parcels
and they are not a part of the project site and they will remain. So I think a
point that I wanted to highlight is the building it does not extend on to the
project site does not extend on to Oak Grove Road. And here are just some site
photographs really showing what those office buildings looks, the existing office buildings
look like and existing access into the site from both Mitchell and Shadelands. And in
the middle, I've included some photos that really just show what the existing office
building looks like in relation to the Via Monte community across the street.
It's working just fine. That's going to be hard.
I guess some technical assistance please. Yeah the clicker is not working but I'll keep
going while he figures that out so. Apologies for that. I'll start up again so yeah so here's
a site photographs of the existing office buildings on site that will be demolished.
And before we get into the project, I really wanted to go over the background.
In October, on October 18th of 2023, a SB 330 application was submitted pursuant to
the Housing Accountability Act and the builder's remedy.
And on October 24th of 2023, the city's housing element was certified by HCD.
The application before you tonight was submitted six days prior to that certification.
And on April 9th of 2024, the formal planning application was submitted.
And from that time to May of 2025, there were multiple rounds of review, revisions to deem
the project complete.
And June 18th of 2025, the Design Review Commission reviewed this project and provided advisory
comments that they want the Planning Commission to consider tonight.
So here is a list of those comments.
The applicants team also has a presentation, so they will go in more detail how all of
this has been addressed in the revised plans.
I'll just note that these all have been addressed with the exception of preserving more red
wood trees on site.
They are preserving seven trees within the central area, but apart from that, they weren't
able to protect any more.
And before we dive into the project details, I want to go over the various state housing
laws that are being processed, that this project is being processed under.
I will in the next few slides go through all of these.
So I'll start with the Housing Accountability Act, which essentially means that the city's
review is limited for residential projects that meet all of the city's applicable objective
standards.
So the project cannot be denied unless there are any specific health or safety impacts.
And the city would need to make those findings for denial.
And those findings must be based on objective standards.
And SB 330 prevents cities from reducing the residential density or capacity or for applying
any new standards after a application has been deemed complete.
And this project is being processed under SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act as
that does comply with the city's objective standard as well as the design standard.
And the builder's remedy provision under the HAA does allow a developer to propose a housing
project that is more dense or is not consistent with a city's zoning or general planned land
use. Therefore, no legislative amendments would be required for a project being processed
under builder's remedy. And to deny such a project, the city would have to make specific
findings that determine that the city had a substantially compliant and
certified housing element at the time when the project was submitted and so
that means it would need to be certified by HCD. And given that this project has a
planned development that refers to business park zoning standards, the city
determined that in addition to those standards, the project should also align
with the development standards of the most comparable residential zone which
as the multifamily and it would fall within the range of the medium density multifamily
development under the general plan designation as the applicant is proposing 19 dwelling
units per acre which falls within that range of 14 to 22 dwelling units per acre.
So that was considered to be the best fit.
And the last of the state laws that apply to this project is the state density bonus.
The applicant is requesting waivers, and a total of 10 waivers, and under density bonus,
the project is allowed to request those waivers to the development standards because it is
providing affordable units.
The project is providing 55 low-income units.
And the only way to deny the waiver would be if the city finds that there is substantial
evidence that it would cause a specific health or safety impact that cannot be mitigated.
And now I'll dive into the project proposal. The 422 unit multi-family development, it
is a three-story townhouse with a mix of building types that consist of range from two plex
all the way through seven plex designs, have two car garages and outdoor decks. The units
are arranged across 82 different buildings and the height ranges from 38 to 40 feet.
There are a total of 955 parking spaces being provided, and 542 new trees are being proposed,
as well as a centralized open space area. The frontage improvements include four new street
lights along Shadelands Drive and new sidewalks, ten-foot wide sidewalks on Mitchell Drive
as well as Shadelands Drive.
And a roundabout and bike lane extensions that extend beyond the project site are proposed.
The roundabout location is at the intersection of Villa Monte and Shadelands, and the bike
lane extensions are along Shadelands as well as on Mitchell Drive, and these folks extend
beyond the project frontage.
And the roundabout is essentially,
it's been contemplated in the Shailin's multi-modal plan
that's been adopted by city council.
The city engineer did suggest it,
but it's not required or needed for this project,
but more in order to really provide safety enhancements.
So it's not triggering it, but just to enhance the area.
the applicant agreed and stated
that they would be providing that as part of this project,
which we call offsite community benefits.
And the project is also preserving
eight existing trees onsite,
and 449 tree removals are requested.
Of the 73 trees were already administratively approved
by the city arborists due to the size species
and the health of the trees.
the remaining 376 does require Planning Commission approval tonight and I wanted
to point that none of these are highly protected species. And although the
project is being processed under the Housing Accountability and Builders
Remedy provisions it is still subject to CEQA and the city did an analyze all
environmental impacts that are across the CEQA Appendix G categories that are
listed here. The project is also subject to the various entitlement findings and
and have been addressed as part of attachment
to your packet tonight.
So that would be the subdivision map findings,
the design review findings,
as well as the tree removal findings
and compliance with the city's objective design standards.
And I'll just quickly run through the timeline of events,
really just to show that we started in 2024
where the CEQA process was initiated,
the notice of preparation was issued,
And then the public scoping meeting was held in December 11th of 2024.
And from that time as you see to today's date, it's been over a year.
So in that process we did the draft EIR circulation
for the 45-day mandatory public review period that started on August 21st.
However, given the interest from the community, we did extend that to November 20th,
an additional 45 days to really get that additional community feedback and give them more time
to review the draft EIR.
And then, of course, the comments on that public comments received were incorporated
into the environmental analysis.
And the final EIR was submitted to the state clearinghouse on January 29th.
The EIR was posted on the city's website.
And so tonight, we are requesting that certification of the EIR.
And the CEQA topics with less than significant or no impacts or no mitigation was required
are listed on this slide.
And then the CEQA topics with potential impacts but with mitigation measures included would
result to a less than significant level are listed on this slide.
And mitigation monitoring and reporting is included as a condition of approval and it
does require compliance with that.
And there are no impacts that would remain significant or unavoidable.
And I also wanted to highlight the common theme of comments received.
They're listed on this slide.
All of these comments have been received and were responded to as part of the EIR, which
is included as your packet tonight.
And we do have the environmental consultant with us and could also go over any of the
conclusions that came out of this.
The existing general plan designation is business park, and the zone is plan development.
There are no residential standards.
However, under the HAA, if the current zoning or general plan does not allow that use, alternative
standards that enable the project may be used.
In this case, the applicable best fit standards do apply, and we apply the M2 standards.
This is just again another look at the the base density the density proposed for this project
As mentioned earlier it falls within that fourteen point one to twenty two dwelling units per acre
proposing 19 dwelling units per acre
55 low-income units will be provided that is 13 percent which does exceed the city's seven percent
inclusionary housing requirement and
because they're providing low income they are
entitled to receive unlimited waivers,
however the applicant is requesting 10 standard
that would physically preclude the feasibility
of the housing development.
And here is the table that is also included
in the agenda packet staff report.
This really outlines the 10 requested waivers.
And as mentioned earlier, M2 is just the best fit,
but the actual zoning for the site is the PD
that refers to business park and I'll give an example.
The business park zone requires
a minimum 25 foot front setback.
The applicant is providing 10 feet.
Another example is number five,
which is a minimum 20 foot side setbacks required.
The applicant is providing 10 feet
and the 10 feet is actually consistent
with what a multifamily development typically requires
for a side setback.
And now moving into the tentative map,
the subdivision will create 82 lots and 49 parcels.
And here is the proposed site plan
that essentially shows that access to a site
is from Mitchell and Shailin's Drive.
And then those accesses then connect
to the internal roadways of the development.
This project is in two separate neighborhoods.
So the access is also broken up
into the based on neighborhood type,
which I'll show you in the next slide.
There is no through access for vehicles across the site.
And the project will be completed in two phases.
The applicant will elaborate more on this.
And here is a detailed architectural site plan.
There are seven building types.
And as mentioned earlier, there are two neighborhoods.
Let's see.
So there's two architectural building styles,
and that's neighborhood one and neighborhood two.
So access to neighborhood one is gained from Mitchell Drive,
and access to neighborhood two
is gained from Shadelands Drive,
and there is no cut-through traffic for any vehicles.
However, there is a pedestrian walkway connection
from Mitchell Drive all the way down to Shadelands
for easy pedestrian accessibility.
And the townhomes consist of four floor plans each,
which is a total of eight floor plans.
And neighborhood one has six building types.
Neighborhood two has four larger building types.
Excuse me.
Thank you, it's a lot to speak.
And then the unit sizes range from 1,288 to 2,157
consist of two to four bedroom townhomes.
Two car garages are included in each unit.
Plan one in the neighborhood two has a tandem garage design.
And each town home or neighborhood,
which is neighborhood one and two,
does feature distinct architectural styles
that are identified as style A and style B,
with a total of four color schemes per neighborhood.
As you can see, these are the four proposed
for neighborhood one,
and then the four below proposed for neighborhood two.
And we also have them up behind the Design Review Secretary,
Neighborhood 1, and Neighborhood 2.
The far left is Neighborhood 1.
Right behind the Secretary is Neighborhood 1.
Thank you.
And here are some renderings that, again,
I'll let the applicant's team go more into detail.
But the top left is essentially at the corner of,
at the intersection of Villa Monte and Shadelands.
And it also shows that rendering
of the proposed roundabout.
Thank you.
And I'm not gonna spend too much time in the floor plans,
but I did wanna highlight the key differences.
So this is neighborhood one floor plan.
Neighborhood plan one, which is shown here,
is the only two bedroom design.
The other two through four plans
are all three bedroom designs.
The layout is essentially the same.
Each unit includes a rear garage,
a entryway, and a flex optional room on the ground floor,
and main living areas, kitchen, great room,
and an outdoor deck on the second floor.
And on the third floor are the bedrooms and bathrooms.
And here are the two architectural styles
for neighborhood one.
So as you can see here are the recess entries
with the private balconies and the large windows.
And neighborhood one is essentially a little more,
I would say it features more modern expressive palette compared to neighborhood two.
It consists of the vertical board and batten siding and stucco and then there's stone veneer
and metalwood used as accents.
And this is neighborhood two floor plan.
Again I'm just highlighting the key differences.
And plan one is the design that mentioned earlier has a tandem design.
there is no bedroom on the ground floor but there is a bedroom on the second
floor in plan one of neighborhood two and the remaining plans are all
essentially the same where they have a bedroom on the ground floor and plan four
of neighborhood two being the largest one has four bedrooms and here is
neighborhood two again the two architectural styles that would be
applied, consists of board and batten siding and stucco also includes
horizontal fiber cement lap siding as well as stone veneer
accents at the base and the metal accents. One thing that is different here
is the larger the use of the wood accent in larger areas. This I would say is more
of a craftsman style character compared to the more modern and a little more
toned down color palette. But overall, the massing of both neighborhood 1 and
2 are very similar. And now moving on to the landscaping plan, the applicant is
proposing 542 new trees that consist of a range from 24 inch to 36 inch box and
also preserving the existing 7 redwood trees that are located within the
central area and an existing oak tree that's located further to the west
property line. And in addition, I have listed here all of the major trees that
will be planted along the project frontages or the perimeter of the
site. And then in addition to that, there's several more trees that will be
scattered throughout the site. And here's just a closer look at that central open
space amenities area. And again, highlighted in yellow with the star are
the existing redwood trees that are being preserved. And the last request
before you tonight is the tree removals. There are a total of 449 trees being
removed. The city arborist did approve 73 of these due to the size, species, and
health, and the remaining 376 does require Planning Commission's approval.
And as noted earlier, none of these are highly protected species in the city's
tree ordinance. And again, just showing where those existing trees that are
being preserved are located. And there are 31 off-site trees. I've bubbled this
area because there are highly protected trees on the neighboring property,
and these are all being preserved and protected in place. And there are
conditions of approval for that, as well as if there's any undersized tree that's
less than nine inches in diameter, and I believe there are several off-site trees that are less
than nine inches in diameter over here. They could be removed without a permit, but there are
conditions of approval essentially documenting all of this information. And with that, the planning
staff does recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution certifying the EIR,
which, and the MMRP, which is included as Attachment 1, and the second resolution which
approves the project entitlements. It's included as attachment 2 of your packet,
and the entitlements are listed on this slide.
For the record, City did receive a number of
additional comments, both in support and in opposition,
and these were included in the agenda packet as attachment 7.
With that, I do conclude my presentation, but
I'm happy to answer any questions that we also have several members of the City
team, the planning, public works, traffic and engineering, along with the first Carbon
Solutions Environmental Consultant who did assist in preparing the EIR, and they can
also speak to a lot of the public comments that were raised surrounding the project alternatives,
the geometric hazard, schools and safety, and they also had prepared, which was part
of the packet, the additional traffic analysis that was done.
And of course, the applicants team, Jonathan Fern, I believe has a presentation for you
tonight as well.
And yeah, I'm here to answer any questions.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
The questions from the planning commission, first half.
I have a couple.
The waivers, there's 10 of them I think you said, and for most of those, the justification
and the constraint on the planning commission is because it would, without the waiver, the
density would have to be reduced.
So with the density bonus, there's a certain number of units that they're entitled to propose
built. And if there's a waiver requested or proposed that without which that
density would have to be reduced, that's sufficient to prevent us from not, to
keep us from denying that waiver. Yes. Correct. So the waivers have the same
health or safety findings that the city would need to make. So unless any of the
waivers requested are resulting in some sort of impact,
the city cannot deny it.
And yes, it would, by denying the waiver,
it would essentially result in impacts or feasibility
of the project and reduction in density.
Just to clarify, I'm Claire Ly, assistant city attorney.
The standard for a waiver is that it physically
precludes the project.
The statute says that it's at the density
that's permitted by Density Bonus Plus
with all the concessions and waivers combined.
And then there is case law that says you, the city,
would have to grant the waiver if it recludes it
at the density and design that's proposed by the applicant.
And so that gives the consideration for the city
about when something can be waived.
And then there's the findings that Simmer mentioned
about denying waivers and concessions.
Okay, thank you.
Let's see.
There was, in some of the letters,
there were comments about the school assignments
for this project.
The children who were in this project
would go to one school district which is heavily impacted
already and doesn't have a lot of room,
whereas one which I gather is also nearby
is would love to have more students.
Is that a question of who makes that decision?
Is that the school districts themselves, or is it?
That's between the school district and the developers
team, I believe, and the city doesn't weigh in on that.
Is it dependent upon the boundaries
of the school district?
In other words, if this parcel is within one school district
boundary, is it default that they would
go to that school district?
So I might defer that question to the applicants team, again, because-
I'll take it up, Sam.
I can weigh in a little bit.
She's right.
The city really does not have much in the say of where those boundaries are.
But we do send all this material out to the districts for their comments on these.
And that's my understanding that we received no comments from any school district?
We received no comments.
Correct.
Thank you.
Can I just add to that, my understanding as a former member of the Mt. Diablo school board
is that the map that the school district currently has is based on this area not having housing.
So I don't think that the public can use those maps.
If this development goes forward, I believe the school district will need to determine
what schools have space and probably do a demographic study to be able to determine
which schools, but yeah, this is not a city decision to be made here tonight.
Any other questions?
Commissioner Klob.
Hi, thank you for all the work that went into this presentation.
I have a CEQA question or a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program question.
So it was stated that there were seven different areas that required action through the Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan, and it wasn't really specified how does that work and who's accountable
for the measurement and where does that get tracked and reported.
And so I just want a quick overview of how MMRPs work so that everyone understands what
the follow-through is, et cetera.
So I'm not saying the specific actions, but how does it work?
How do we track it?
How do we monitor and make sure that these effects are valid?
Yeah, I believe the MMRP document does indicate does it fall under the purview of planning
or building?
And this is usually done during the construction or permitting phase.
So when the project comes in as a building permit or site development permit, we look
at it as part of that.
So we do, the city monitors it.
I can add to that.
So most, if not all of the mitigation measures that are in the MMRP are construction related.
I don't know that there's any operational long term.
Are they all construction related?
I believe it's all construction.
And so those are in the program includes who's responsible when those things are supposed
to be done, whether it's a long-term mitigation or an observation,
or the fuel you use in your equipment, the idling times, things like that.
I don't know if it's in this MMRP, but oftentimes it's roosting birds and bats
to look out for that kind of thing.
And there are assignments for who is responsible to do this,
and of course to report it.
And a lot of this stuff, especially construction related, is discussed in a
pre-construction meeting, which we always hold between the the developers
team and the City's development services team. A few questions that came up had
to do with Builders Remedy and whether it actually applies to this project or
or not. I just want to make sure we're clear here tonight and with the community that we
are not as the Planning Commission determining whether this is a Builders Remedy project
or not.
That's correct. The Commission isn't determining it. It is a Builders Remedy project, and I
can have the City Attorney weigh in if needed.
Yeah, I can clarify that question.
And so the, as provided in a staff report, in order for the Commission to deny the project
or impose conditions that make the project infeasible, there are certain findings that
must be made.
And one of the findings or two of them relate to a substantially compliant housing element.
There is new statute that went into effect in 2025 that speaks to the issue of when the
housing element is considered to be substantially compliant.
The statute provides that for the purposes of those remedy projects review that the housing
element is substantially compliant when at the time of a preliminary application submittal
under SPE 330, that either HCD or a court has certified it.
And as the SABRA also provides that when the project
submitted the SPE 330 preliminary application,
the city's housing element was not certified by HCD,
it was certified six days later.
And so that is the status of the housing element issue.
And the commission is looking at these facts
in terms of making the findings or not.
And that is the decision, part of decision
for that, that Asia decision tonight.
Commissioner Moran.
Yeah, thank you so much.
I don't know if this question is best for you
or for the traffic expert that we have here.
Some of the public comments touched on the issue
of increased cars coming in and out.
I guess my question is, if somebody could maybe walk
the group through the concept of how the traffic is approached, the issue of that, right?
Because on its face, you would say, there's not much there now, there's going to be a
lot more cars coming, therefore, that might be an issue.
But that's not, in my understanding, exactly how it's sort of looked at.
It's my understanding that it's more based on what is legally allowed or what could be
there, and then, compared to that, what the project is.
On the right track. Yeah, we can call the
Consultant or W trans they're available tonight to answer any questions related to traffic
Western eating
Did we want to okay great I think that's you can give us a little a
BMT slash LOS I
Could do all those things
I'll be a brief however
Good evening. My name is Mark Spencer. I'm a senior principal with W trans
We worked with first carbon on behalf of the city to prepare the environmental documentation
There's actually two transportation reports that are included in your packet one is part of the EIR the CEQA documentation itself
And then there's separate non CEQA traffic operations report. We do those separately now a few years ago that changed so
Previously, many of you have looked at transportation reports, you look at intersection, delay and
level of service and all those things. That's taken out of CEQA now. Those aren't part of
environmental impacts. But there's still operational effects that we need to look at.
So to go to the first question that was brought up, quickly, how do you walk through this?
What we have now is a site, and when we did traffic counts and we looked at the area,
We did our, you know, in the field surveys.
The office was about 80 percent occupied.
And we said, okay, that's what's going away.
It's not fully occupied.
We get that.
It could be.
And we say, okay, those trips are going to go away.
And then we're going to add in the proposed project trips.
And what's the difference in that number of trips?
Well, the, it gets confusing
because the proposed project actually generates fewer trips
than the office development.
The office development as it currently is at its current occupancy level.
However, there is a change in the traffic patterns.
You have an office development, people are coming to work in the morning.
So they're coming like into the area.
And then in the afternoon, they leave the area.
Residential development, it's the opposite, okay?
You have people living there, they're gonna leave and go to work in the morning and come back in the afternoon.
So we evaluate what are those changes, not only just in numbers, but in traffic patterns during a morning commute period,
during an afternoon commute period.
And what is the effect of that?
And that's what the basis of our analysis is.
That's a standard practice that not only the city follows
but the county, Caltrans and others.
That's a standard practice.
And that's where we came up with our conclusions on that.
We did in the non-sequo traffic operational report,
we did look at several nearby intersections.
We looked at roadways.
We looked at what happens on Ignacio Valley Boulevard.
And we looked at how those trips are distributed.
And again, just I know there's comments about, well,
you don't look at Treat Boulevard.
Treat actually would get fewer vehicles under this plan
because of the change in traffic,
and also how much would come to and from the north.
And we look at where jobs are located,
where schools are, services.
And it also considers just, you know, people using BART.
Are they going to the BART station?
Are they driving to their jobs, whether those are in Walnut Creek or Oakland
or San Francisco, San Jose and what have you.
Question about VMT, now that's vehicle miles traveled.
And in the last five, six years, that's become the standard metric
that we have to use in CEQA documents.
So in an EIR or something like that.
And vehicle miles traveled, I like to put it this way.
Previously, when we analyzed a development, we'd say,
what's the effect, what's the impact of this development
on the traveling public?
Is it going to make things, you're going to have to, like,
take longer to get from point A to point B. The BMT,
we kind of turned that 180 degrees on its head.
We said, well, now, what is the effect on traffic
and distances of traffic, and how far people travel,
and what does that really mean?
Because that's kind of having a much broader effect.
Okay, not just point by point by point,
but in the city, in the region.
So, if you have vehicle miles traveled, it says,
well, if someone works, if someone lives in Walnut Creek,
and they work in Oakland, and let's say that's 20 miles away,
they drive to Oakland, and however they get there,
if they drive there, they drive 20 miles there,
and they drive 20 miles back,
That's 40 vehicle miles traveled, okay, and very simple exercise in looking at that.
Let me take, well, how many people in this development, how many adults, where are they
going to work?
And you start looking at all the different VMT metrics.
The way to evaluate that is you compare that to other types of development, and also what
is the standard in Walnut Creek?
What is the standard in Contra Costa County?
And the goal for every new development, whether it's this or anything else, is, are you at
that level that is the average for that area?
And you now have to have a goal that is 15 percent below that.
Every development comes in, you have to do better.
That's a standard.
That's what the state mandates, and that's what everyone is following, from the counties
to the cities, those are the threshold criteria.
This area and a lot of Walnut Creek happens to be in a lower VMT area than a good deal
of the county.
The reason for that is we have transit services.
We have bus services with enough frequency and we have BART.
We have availability of transportation services.
So yes, most of us drive.
That's that no one's no one's denying that.
But we have these opportunities to reduce trips and trip lengths because of these other
types of services.
This project happens to be in an area with a lower VMT ratio than the region.
It is already at an area, so if you put housing in here, you're doing better than, say, if
you're putting housing in Antioch or Brentwood or Discovery Bay.
No knock against those areas, okay?
It's just that we have more services here, so it's a lower VMT area.
So this is a good place to put housing
in terms of regional transportation effect.
And that then relates to things like air quality
and other things as well.
And that's why that's looked at.
So I'll stop there unless there's other questions
regarding transportation.
I'm happy to answer them now or later and if it's appropriate.
Thank you.
Okay.
Any other questions?
No, Vice Chair Neill.
I think it'd be important, Claire,
Because there's always constantly changes
in housing legislation.
So I wanted to bring up two things.
The certification of housing element.
There are still, so you brought up the whole point
of cities or jurisdictions cannot self-certify.
And that's important because that was passed.
But one thing that I think is important to know
is that there are still counties and cities out there
for the city of Walnut Creek
that still have yet to have a
certified housing element. So
that so that is one HCD
required it in January late at
end of January 2023 and soon
thereafter the city of Walnut
Creek if I'm not mistaken got
their certification so they
were city Walnut Creek wasn't
was not one of the last. It
is correct. The housing element statute provides for timelines when you have to
adopt a housing element and the city's met that the city actually adopted a
little bit earlier than the deadline and the statute also requires you to submit
the adopted element to a CD for certification and the city as you
mentioned vice chair that the city achieved that you know while there are
other jurisdictions that still remains. You're right. And then the other thing
that I think is important to look at this because it's interesting because
builders remedy has actually been a part of the Housing Accountability Act
since 1982 if I'm not mistaken so for 44 years. But can you explain to us because
the original submission was part of the original builders remedy in the 1982 HAA
A, but then it subsequently changed to AB 1893, and one thing important about that law
is that it codified minimum and maximum densities to protect cities from having what I like
to call as the Miami Tower. Can you kind of explain because the applicant did change that
new law which did then subsequently restrain them from putting a giant Miami tower, is
that correct?
That is correct.
The statute, the Builders Army statute, that's correct that it was a part of the HAA for
quite some time.
It is not new legislation in that term.
And the statute that I mentioned earlier where I kind of codified when a housing analyst
since standards are sufficiently compliant,
also amended the Bill of During the Statue
to provide that previously a project could qualify
for a bill of determining if it provided
for 20% affordability.
And now the new law, which is already in effect,
provides for different types of affordability.
So one aspect of the project,
I think the staff report mentions this,
is that the affordability is allowed to be 13%
for low-income, which the project is providing.
And at the same time, the law does provide
for certain maximum densities and requires a project
to meet minimum density, if the parcel has that.
In this case, there isn't one,
but if there were, the project has complied with that.
And it also provides for maximum densities,
which is based on one, the city's housing element,
minimum density that is determined appropriate
for lower income.
And for Walnut Creek, that's 30 units per acre.
So it's based on that,
but it's also based on whether or not the city
is in what's called a high resource census tract area,
which Walnut Creek is within one.
And in that situation,
the law provides for a 50% density on top of the 30.
But all of that to say that we've reviewed that
and the project is not exceeding those maximums.
And then last but not least,
and this is something important
because I know that a lot of folks
in Walnut Creek affordable housing is important to them
and the type of affordable housing.
Can you also explain the law also required
a certain look and feel of those homes
in comparison to the market rate?
The village reamutazu does require
that you have kind of equal comparable distribution.
So essentially the market rate and the affordability units
are kind of dispersed evenly
and they're kind of looking the same.
And so you know, the applicant can speak to this,
but I believe that's the case, yeah.
Thank you.
Any other questions for staff?
Okay, very good.
In that case, I will open public hearing
and invite the applicant to present the application
And you have 15 minutes.
Thank you.
All right.
Okay, well, thank you, Chair, Commissioners.
I am Jonathan Fern.
I'm Senior Vice President Development
for Signature Development Group.
And on behalf of our team today,
we are happy to present the Mitchell Drive Townhomes Project
for your consideration.
Per your request, Chair,
I won't spend too much time on these slides.
I think Spimmer did a really good job
of describing where it is and what it is
from an existing use standpoint.
But just to give some high level site plan highlights,
the project is a 422 total townhomes,
a little over two acres of publicly accessible open space
scattered upon that kind of east-west central spine there.
We will be incorporating a number of the components
of the Shidlands Multimotor Plan as Simmer discussed,
One being the 10 foot wide sidewalks on Mitchell
and Shailin's where none exists today.
Also bike lanes as well.
And we'll talk about the extension of those bike lanes
a little later in my presentation.
As Summer mentioned, we are retaining seven redwoods again
in that central open space,
increasing the tree canopy from what exists today,
488 trees to 542 trees,
again not taking down any trees that are highly protected
under your code.
We have 111 guest parking spaces scattered
through the internal roadway network there.
And then 30 bike spaces also kind of coupled along
the open spaces was just talked about 55 units,
13% will be available to low income households.
It's about double the city code.
And then this takes a significant step
towards City of Walnut Creek's arena requirements.
6% of all of the low income units that are required
will be dealt with in this project as well as nearly 16%
of all the above moderate units that are required.
We do have the two entrances on Shadelands and Mitchell
as Simmer highlighted reason we didn't want cut through
traffic from Mitchell to Shadelands for automobiles,
but again, we do have a cut through for pedestrians.
And again, Simmer talked about this,
two different neighborhoods, two different product types,
just to have a wider spectrum of availability of product
for sale and we'll be doing these in two different phases.
So you can see the phases are the eastern portion
of the property that will go first.
The western side of the property will go second
and we will be having both product types in each phase again
to have a greater offering for sale.
And also we're doing this in phases
because we certainly know we can't absorb
422 townhomes all at once.
Just to take a step back about how we looked
at programming this, kind of to the point
about not putting in Miami Towers.
We took a look at what was around us
and wanted to do something that was contextual.
So kind of starting at the top of the page there
at the graphic, the 2800 Mitchell CCRC,
the continuing care retirement community,
that stands at about three to four stories,
about 40 feet along Mitchell.
The remaining building within the Walnut Creek
Executive Park between us and Oak Grove
is three stories, about 30, 35 feet.
The Villa Monte senior community to our south
is four stories and 40 feet.
And then the Shadeland Sports Mall,
the Post-Acute facility is 30 and 24 feet respectively.
To give a sense, our townhomes to the top
of the living space, the third floor of each townhome
a little under 30 feet and then we have roof articulation that takes us up to about 38 to 40.
So we feel that we're you know kind of hitting the kind of the bullseye here between what's
around us and that was important and then from a density standpoint the viamante is about 50
units to the acre. The 2800 Mitchell is about 39 units to the acre. We're at 19, so we're
we're significant below those from a density standpoint,
so we just feel like this is kind of positioned very well
from a land use standpoint.
Just want to give a quick nod to site contact.
We did want to create a, you know, a frontage,
residential frontage along both Shadelands and Mitchell,
but we are, I know there's some concerns
about how far the units were set back.
As mentioned, we have a 10 foot wide sidewalk along both Shadelands and Mitchell, then we're 10 foot beyond that for our setback.
So we're a minimum of 20 feet from the face of curb and kind of extending back to 25 in some areas.
So just want to make that clear.
That said, we knew we didn't nail it when we first designed the projects.
And so we've had a number of conversations, presentations throughout the time that we've been at this with community groups, interested parties,
stakeholders, the DRC, and so one of the examples of that is the DRC back in June.
They asked us to take a look at our central open space and see if there was
a way to make it a little more usable, and what I mean by that is that, as you
can see with these blue arrows, we had kind of on-grade stormwater detention
facilities that were breaking up the usability of the open space, and so they
asked if we could look at a different stormwater treatment system called
silva cells, which are kind of below grade to make that central space a little more aggregated
and usable.
And so we did that.
And as you can see, we kind of tied that together with the light green areas there.
So that's all connected now.
We also, and this is an example of what that would look like when it's built.
We look for other opportunities to do that as well at our dog park area, which is shown
there in the circle on the right, and our rain garden area, which is shown there on
the left.
As you can see here, again, we had these kind of larger stormwater detention areas, and
then you can see now that we have changed that so that we have ability for a little
more gathering space, a little more space for the dogs, everybody loves that.
And then throughout all of this, we were able to get, I believe it's 32 more trees in the
site, so we were obviously happy about that, given the concern around trees.
thing that the DRC asked us to do was around pedestrian connectivity both
through the site and for the residents themselves. So the first thing Simmer
mentioned this is they wanted us to widen the central sidewalk from five
feet to eight feet so it was a little more inviting for folks that don't live
within the actual project itself and then they wanted us to see if we can
make a connection out to Oak Grove from the eastern side of our property so it
it was a little easier for folks in the community
to migrate out to Oak Grove Road.
So we did that, not really shown here,
but we are showing in this rendering here
what we hope is a little more inviting
and welcoming entry to the community for all to use.
Additionally, we heard from a community member
that was looking at our N2 project.
It's like, why do you have your balconies facing
basically the auto courts that are coming in
to serve the garages, it wouldn't be better
to have those facing out to the streets, to the piseos.
And we kind of scratched our head for a second,
but thought, you know, that's actually a pretty good idea.
And so we've incorporated that.
As you can see here on the top
is what it looked like before.
And then we've changed it.
So we've put our balconies kind of on the front elevations
on the back before to address that very good comment actually.
Talked a lot about safety improvements.
We know about that.
This is something that we certainly wanted to be
part of the solution.
So a couple of things highlighted here.
One, we heard a concern about cars,
obviously speeding down Shadelands,
particularly coming off of Oak Grove Road.
So one of the things that we have worked with traffic on
is putting a raised crosswalk where that yellow arrow is,
that will hopefully slow down cars
to allow folks at the Villa Monte Senior Facility
to make a left turn onto Shadelands a little easier.
And then also we talked about the roundabout.
So that's part of the shadings multimodal plan
that the city really wants to see implemented.
And we felt we could be a part of that
and install that traffic calming measure as well.
Addition, talked about bike lanes.
This is what we would ordinarily be required to put in.
Just result of our project,
it's bike lanes on your project frontage.
But again, in conversations with the city,
it's important to extend those bike lanes.
So we've agreed to extend those bike lanes
on the north side of Shadelands,
all the way from Oak Grove to Wigget,
and on the south side of Shadelands
from North Villa Monte to Wigget,
and then on Mitchell on both sides
from our project frontage on the west,
all the way to Oak Grove Road.
In addition to those community members that I just talked
about, we're also committing to a monetary contribution
for traffic camera enhancements
at Ignacio Valley and Villa Monte.
We're contributing monetarily traffic camera enhancements
Oak Grove Road and the Contra Costa bike trail intersection.
And then we're also contributing to median islands
where the Contra Costa bike trail crosses Oak Grove Road,
hopefully give a little bit of respite for folks
that are crossing Oak Grove at that point.
The reason why we're doing that monetary contribution
for the median islands is because apparently,
on the south side, you're in Walnut Creek.
On the north side, you are in Concord.
We didn't want to get in the middle of a kind
of a bi-jurisdictional permitting process.
So we felt that it was best that the city deal
with that. So that's the reason for that. I just want to talk quickly about
traffic. I know we just talked about that. As you have seen from the traffic
report, this project does result in fewer car trips than what exists today.
That's based on a conservative 80% occupancy of the park, which is what it
was when we submitted. But I do understand and recognize that that
doesn't that doesn't necessarily comport with what folks are kind of seeing on
the street. But I do want to go through a quick timeline here. We all know what
COVID pandemic did back in 2020 emptied out a lot of office parks, this one included. But the
project was purchased by the current owner in 2022 and as you would think they were purchased
it with the intention of fully occupying it. But what happened is a SB 330 application for this
project was turned in about a year later. We turned in our form application a year after that
and then we're here today. All this is to say is that that's six years and if you've lived
at the Villa Monte residence for six years or less,
this is what you would see as reality.
But what has happened is that we have,
the current owner has not attended the site
or have made an effort to tenet the site
because of this ongoing application.
So somewhat ironic that the application
is actually somewhat responsible
for what people are seeing today.
But we do feel, as mentioned by the gentleman at W-Trans,
this is a great place for housing.
We're already seeing a residence of uses
in the Shadelands Business Park right now.
Over the last 10 to 15 years,
they have been working to diversify the business park.
But as you can see, as you all know,
there are grocery stores within walking distance,
there's sports mall within walking distance,
schools, a lot of different things
within walking distance of the site.
So we really feel that it's a pretty good thing
to put housing here.
Just to wrap up, we've been at this for,
like I said, almost, excuse me, two and a half years,
starting in October of 2023,
went number of rounds with the city,
year later got deemed complete,
dressed all their comments,
and then for the last half of this year,
or last year, excuse me,
have been addressing comments in the EIR,
and then we're here this evening.
So with that, I will take any comments or questions
and look forward to discussion.
Thank you.
Questions, comments for the applicant?
If I could ask one, I do want to say thank you so much
for the presentation.
It was nice to have additional detail about the project,
hearing from the developer.
My understanding with the plans is
that in addition to the main pedestrian sidewalk that's
going to pass to the middle, that there
were going to be two others, one on the west side
of the property and one of the east.
And because this project is being developed in two phases,
I realized now that as phase one is built,
the eastern walkthrough would be the one
that would be available to residents
and other people passing through first.
And the central walkway would not be available
until the second phase is completed around 2030.
Yeah, that's correct.
But we will obviously allow for pedestrian migration through
on that right side walkway there.
So, yeah, we will be building that out as we go forward,
but that is correct.
Does the pedestrian path through the eastern side
follow the main drives, or is it more
towards the edge of the problem line?
How do you, oh, can I use, oh, there we go.
So it comes up here, and then you cross,
and then it comes right next to the dog park,
and then it comes up here, and then you just walk out straight.
So it's basically interring here, kind of jogging here,
and then going straight up.
Oh, so you would kind of start across,
right across from the crosswalk, from Villa Montay?
Correct.
And then make your way through.
Okay.
Yeah.
All right.
I have a question about the mitigation measures.
Yep.
There's, on my count, 16 plus some submeasures,
some of them pretty significant.
Are there any that you find are gonna be
particularly difficult that you think you are able to,
within the context of construction so far,
to complete all the mitigation measures?
No, I mean, we've reviewed the mitigation measures.
You know, a lot of them are our best practices
and just how you would construct a property,
but no, we've agreed to them and we understand them
and we're fine with all of them.
Any questions?
We should count.
One of the suggestions along the way
was thinking about families living here
and whether there was a play area for them.
I don't believe you mentioned that in your review tonight.
Yeah, the play area there, good question.
The play area there is shown in the blue.
So yes, we did insert that per the design review committee.
They mentioned that, so we did put that in.
Yes, so we'll have a play area.
Vice Chair Neill.
Is there an exhibit where you show,
maybe I missed it, where the affordable is located?
We do have an exhibit that shows that
as part of our plan set.
I don't have that here.
All it is to say is that we have dispersed
the affordable units throughout the project.
So we're not aggregating them in any one area,
corner, whatever, we're spreading them out per plan
and per plan type and that type of thing.
Is this gonna be a, I'm slightly confused with your phasing
because it looks like you're creating four parcels,
but then are you doing two large lot final maps?
Correct, yeah.
To land bank the phase two or just sell it off?
So we're in contract for these two phases.
We are, the four lot subdivision I think you're looking at
is for conveyance purposes,
in case we need to subdivide even further.
But we are in contract to take down phase one,
and then a couple of years later, phase two.
So the part that's confusing to me
is that usually when you have two large,
because all these are gonna be condo?
Correct.
Is I understand that for absorption, 422 units is a lot.
Yes.
It would've been nice in your phasing plans
to show that each phase is stand alone.
And I couldn't, in all of the vesting tandem maps,
and CBG's a fabulous civil engineer,
and they probably have already thought about this.
I'm assuming.
I just can't see it.
Usually, or I guess, is phase one fully stand alone
from C3?
infrastructure that I see. Are you the civil engineer? Yes it is. I would
think that that would be something important to show for us as city, as a
city. There is a, in the plan set, there is a phasing, there's a phase one diagram
that does show that the phase one stands alone. We then also had to prove to the
city that we had adequate parking in phase two because phase two was going to
remain and those buildings are going to remain as what the office buildings will
still remain active while phase two while phase one is being instruct
constructed I can't remember the actual page number apologize no yeah I'm
looking at it so and I think that it was kind of in the background for the
utilities and so I wasn't I couldn't tell like is your C3 standalone it is
or this phase. Yes. Okay. Okay. Everything's yeah they can stand
completely separately. Got it. Thank you. I'm probably have more. Thank you so much.
Yeah, go for it. Commissioner Strongman, Commissioner Count. Going back to the affordable housing, how long do
they remain affordable? I believe it's 55 years. I think it's 45 for ownership.
45 for ownership. At that point they've come market rate. They do. That's
that's the law.
Thank you.
Commissioner Cowne.
Just to follow up question on the phasing,
is it possible or did you consider reversing it
to have phase two happen first,
given the feedback from the community
about being directly across from Via Monte
to do phase two first, is that feasible?
It's just unfortunate that's not how we're in contract
to purchase the property.
So, we have purchase and sale agreements for both phases
and one is going before the other.
So, that's kind of the restrictive,
the restricting aspect of this.
That's fascinating.
Might as well.
A couple of, can you describe more silva cells
just because they're pretty interesting concept, right?
They provide detention and retention
in underground chambers that are,
but you do it, I don't wanna do it.
Oh boy, I don't know if I wanna do it.
That was a very smart ask from the DRC.
So I think it's worth and it's costly.
Yes, so thank you, I mean, thank you for the question.
So typically stormwater retention or detention
is done kind of on grade and below grade.
So you have these kind of basins that
if you look at the Orchard Shopping Center,
you can see them in the kind of the parking lot
or you have water that drains in and then percolates down.
Silva cells are kind of a unique system
where they're kind of like empty legos,
I guess is the best way to really describe them,
and you put them under the ground,
and then you put soil on top of them,
and then you have your grass, your sod on top of that,
and then as you can steer stormwater to the silva cells,
And then water percolates through the silva cells down and gets treated that way.
But it all takes place kind of underground.
And the beauty of it is that you're able to actually program things on top of it.
But yes, it isn't at an expense because you're putting in a layer that's underground.
You have to dig it out to install it.
So there is a premium for it.
But that's...
And I can...
If you would like it better, you know, we can...
And the reason why I brought it up is because you look at the amount of trees, which I read
it constantly, and the city of Walnut Creek, sustainability is of utmost importance to
us.
It's one of the measures that our city council always puts as a priority.
But the one interesting thing about Silva-Cells, having designed them myself, is the fact that
it requires, unlike fire retention basins, it actually requires more trees.
That's correct. That's right. Yep. That's correct.
Which is important because we need to try to get back as many trees as we possibly can,
and then those will subsequently, right, that system almost provides the irrigation for
those trees because it's in the underground chambers, and to me, that was important because
because of the amount of trees that are coming out.
The other thing that I was gonna ask about was,
was there an intentionality of the way how you,
specifically how you designed whether the units
were facing out or in on shade lens
in consideration of the Amante?
Well, we certainly wanted it to feel
like a residential neighborhood.
So we didn't want to like turn our back to it,
because obviously, these units are rear loaded in essence,
so you have to approach them from the rear for your car.
The garage doors are in the rear.
So we didn't want to have a rear,
to have the Via Monti residents looking at garage doors.
We also didn't really want them to be looking
at the size of the units either,
because there's utility boxes and things of that nature.
That's not the best elevation.
So we felt like putting the front elevation
was putting our best foot forward
and it just makes it feel like a residential neighborhood
because that's where you have houses facing each other.
So it made the most sense.
Also, if they are kind of jogged,
then you run the risk of having those alleyways
be kind of vectors for cars coming in at night
and shining their lights into the Villa Monti residence.
So having the way that they're designed in this way
prevents all of that.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
I'll open it up to the public now.
And I, again, remind you that you each have two minutes.
What we will do is the secretary will call out
the name of people on the card.
He's got all the cards there.
If you have not submitted a card and you wish to speak,
the cards are open in the back there.
You can get one handed to one of the staff.
He'll give two or three names if your name is called.
If you're not the initial speaker, just line up behind
so we can move through people quickly.
I'm going to call up three names at a time.
If you would like, the first person would be up.
Please state your name if you'd like, and then if the second
and third would queue behind, that would be great.
I've got a request from Mary Steiner for a list
which we're going to do.
I've got most of the names with the exception of one in cards
And we'll go down that list first, which leads to Mary Steiner, please, Wayne Morris and
Lori Reich.
Jonathan, you're much taller than I am.
I think I got it here.
Good evening, commissioners, and thank you very much for taking the time to hear us.
I'm Mary Steiner, resident of Viamante Senior Living, situated, as you've heard tonight,
directly across the street, across shade land drive from the proposed development.
Let me start by saying that a townhome project can be an asset to Walnut Creek and to the
neighborhood while being a significant contributor to addressing our housing challenges.
I am not NIMBY. However, the project as proposed is just too dense. It could be a substantially
greater asset to the surrounding community and its residents if it incorporated more
open space, more green space and shade and greater setbacks.
This could be accomplished with a very modest decrease in unit density, but would yield
a disproportionately large improvement in lifestyle and aesthetic benefits to future
residents and to the surrounding neighborhood.
The residents of Villa Monte that I speak with
express major concerns and feel let down by the development.
They worry about impairing energy, emergency access,
that's a big one, emergency access for us,
adversely affecting air quality,
the removal of so many large and productive trees,
the lack of setbacks detracting
from the neighborhood sense of place,
and the wildlife that will be affected.
The report provides little, if any, mitigation in these issues.
Please require the developer to mitigate some of our concerns.
Our original comment letter on the draft EIR provided pages of mitigation measures that
many of my neighbors and I would find acceptable.
Please review that document before deciding on the project as it currently stands.
I also urge you to remind Mitchell Town Homes as a builder's remedy project and to ask the
planning department to work with Signature to create less dense housing with more of
a community feeling.
Thank you.
And I have 10 seconds left.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Wayne Morris, please.
Hello commissioners and staff.
My name's Wayne Morris.
I'm a resident of Viamante and I want to discuss the project's impact on biological resources.
To me, it's astounding and frightening that a 600-page EIR fails to address the greatest
environmental threat that we face, climate change.
Everyone agrees that trees are the best way to combat climate change.
Trees pull carbon from the air and retain it.
They also help cool the planet.
Further, redwoods are superheroes in this regard.
It's been estimated that one redwood tree
can absorb more carbon than an entire acre
of a typical forest.
The EIR, however, would approve the destruction
of 461 trees, including 96 redwoods,
and replacing them with 542 saplings.
These are saplings.
24 to 35 gallon trees. I looked on Sloat's website and they say trees in
that size are four to six feet. We're talking about 100 foot redwoods, 99 of
them being destroyed and being replaced with a four to six foot sapling. A
statement would say, a statement was made that this project will increase the
tree canopies. That is ridiculous. A four-foot tree is not going to replace a 100-foot tree.
I want to emphasize that the Planning Commission has the power to deny permits to cut down these
mature trees. You can preserve trees. You can protect the environment and still approve more
houses. Thank you for your attention. Laurie. Thank you, my name is Laurie Reich, I'm also a
resident of Biemonte. My concern is basically for the people who will live there. MTP has only small
patches of green, less than 10 percent of the total acreage. When I looked at it there were no
play areas for children or adults, no picnic area or outdoor game spaces,
clubhouse or a swimming pool for 422 homes, potentially 1,400 people, no places
for residents to really gather. The major areas of open space are primarily
occupied by paved road sidewalks and what we call it via Monty bioswales. I've
I have never heard this term or this new system of underground, so I am glad to see that that
change has taken place.
So basically, I am concerned about the residents' quality of life. Extensive research compares
high amenity wells landscaped housing with green spaces, attractive design, and social
and recreational features to sterile or minimal environments, mainly consisting of buildings
and pavement, and I am sorry, it still looks that way to me.
In studies across urban planning, environmental psychology, public health and real estate
economics, several consistent patterns emerge. These studies demonstrate that living near
green spaces and attractive landscaping is linked to improved mental and emotional well-being,
including less stress, more happiness and higher life satisfaction. Green areas with
mature trees provide restorative benefits that can decrease fatigue and stress while
boosting overall quality of life. Exposure to green space in residential areas has been
associated with better cognitive performance for children. Communal spaces can promote
social interaction and a sense of community, encouraging neighbors to connect and strengthening
community ties, reducing isolation, and boosting neighborhood pride. Housing developments with
attractive landscaping and amenities tend to sell at higher prices. I'll jump
to the end. These studies show that well-designed public spaces like
plazas, gardens, amenity areas and gathering spots are essential for owners
well-being. Please include these quality of life features in this project. Thank
you. Thank you. The next three are Dave Perkins, Stephen Pritzker and Mark
Mark Pearson.
Okay.
If Stephen's ready.
Hi, my name is Stephen Pritzker.
I'm a resident of Viamante.
The ERR minimizes serious air quality risk for children and seniors living next to this
site.
The report identifies a Montessori daycare 3023 feet from the project boundary as a most
exposed receptor.
It admits that without mitigation, cancer risks there would be nearly double the air
district threshold.
The EIR also acknowledges pollution here is cumulative and the region is in non-attainment.
The cumulative analysis that factors in roadway emissions and multiple nearby generators indicate
cancer risk during construction reaching roughly 54 per million at the daycare.
Senior housing and a skilled nursing facility are within 100 feet, yet the report repeatedly
calls the impact less than significant.
The huge assumption is that mitigation will work flawlessly.
The analysis assumes tier four equipment and strict dust control work consistently for
4.75 years of construction.
What's missing is enforceable oversight.
Who is monitoring?
What is measured?
What happens when levels spike?
The city approved schools, senior housing, and skilled nursing this close to the construction
site.
It has a special responsibility to protect the people who will feel these impacts.
If you approve this, do it with enforceable protection and findings supported by substantial
evidence.
Require real-time perimeter monitoring, public reporting and clear stopwatch triggers if
pollution rises.
Protect vulnerable children and seniors.
don't approve this without enforceable protection in place. Let me ask staff if
they can indicate what the enforcement of construction monitoring how that how
that would work the city's building or department work. Yes listed in the MMRP
document and yet so be part of the construction plans and be reviewed with
building division. So for each mitigation measure is a specific? It's actually listed next to it in
a table who will be looking at it. And as far as just general supervision or monitoring of the
construction in general, is that the city building department? Yes, the city building inspectors as
well as the engineering inspectors as part of the permitting phase. Thank you. And there's
some self-reporting as well. Dave Perkins please. Good evening, my name is David Perkins. I'm a
resident of Via Monti. I'm 95 years old, a father of four, a grandfather of eight, a great grandfather
of seven, with possibly a few more. The reason I tell you this is I'm always looking for better
places for my family members to move up and improve their quality of life. I was delighted
when I read Mitchell Town Homes was planning a building complex in Walnut Creek. I was
excited to see a layout of the entire area, which even included two dog parks. As I looked
further, I saw four green areas throughout the site. I was thrilled as I thought it would
to be family parks and children's play equipment areas, and for adults to enjoy the wonderful
outdoors of Walnut Creek. However, as I looked more closely with a magnifying glass, I found
the four green areas to be water retention ponds, the purpose to collect dirty runoff
water. Without proper attention, these sites are great areas for mosquitoes and bugs of
all kind. My close inspection finds absolutely no planned family or children's area. Further,
the ground floor of many of the units is the garage with stairs up to the living area,
all accessible and to the living area which is accessible by stairs. What are the plans for
assisting disabled individuals or mothers with babies to get up these stairs safely.
I have a simple question for those ladies and gentlemen who have the authority to vote
for or against this project.
Knowing what you know, would you move your family into Mitchell townhouses even if their
plans were modified?
think an honest answer would tell you how to vote. Thank you. Thank you. Mark
Pearson and then Katherine Pearson, Tom Stone and Russ Gray. Good evening
Planning Commission members. I am Mark Pearson. I'm a retired biotech
entrepreneur. I live at Viamante. I want to focus this evening on just one thing
And that's mitigating the air quality throughout the five-year construction period for the MTP.
The EIR has generated a health analysis that shows that this project only falls below the Bay Area cancer risk threshold.
thresholds. After the MMR, sorry, the MMR1 and MMR2 procedures have been put in place.
This means that air quality mitigation is not a side note to this project. It means
it should be approved or disapproved on the basis of actual air quality. So I'm
asking you to think about five things for project approval. First, require tier
four diesel engines for all workplaces. Second, require real-time monitoring,
continuously of particulate matter, especially the non-visible PM 2.5 particles.
Near the school and senior housing, where children and seniors are at
greatest risk. Fourth, acquire strict enforcement of anti-idling and fueling
controls. And fifth, require advanced notices to neighbors and the school before major grading
or heavy emission phases. So mitigation is what makes this project less than significant
and approvable. Then these protectors must be transparent, measurable and enforceable.
Thank you very much. Katherine.
Good evening commissioners. I'm Katherine Pearson, a resident of the
amount of senior living. I am presenting you with petitions
supported by 179 of our 250 residents. These residents are concerned about
the plan to place 422 townhomes on 22.5 acres of land
directly across the street from our home. Will the petitioners who are present please stand up.
Go over to the petition please stand up. Thank you. We support the redevelopment
of this property but we believe the current plan requires significant modifications
detailed in our comments to meet the goals and standards of Walnut Creek and its citizens. Now
and in the future. As one example, the MTP proposes to construct three-story single-family
townhouses along Mitchell and Cheylands Drive. They would have only 20-foot setbacks from
the curb, and mature trees would be cut down. This would be a wall of front doors. The proposed
design is neither attractive nor consistent with the rest of the neighbourhood, and the
EIR proposes no mitigating measures. There are an individual's copy of a petition for
the commissioners. Thank you. Thank you. I am Tom Stone, and I live
at Via Monte and ask, is there a more unsuitable site for this project in
Walnut Creek? Medical and early childhood education facilities and senior housing
surround this site. Elements that can influence the approval or current size
and scope of a builder's remedy project are health and safety issues. A crucial
question for the Commission to answer is what exactly are the criteria required
to deem a proposed project as too dangerous for the surrounding population.
The young and elderly are uniquely susceptible to serious adverse health
effects from the air contaminants that will be generated during demolition, debris cleaning,
clearing and construction activities. The analysis for air contaminants in the report
are woefully inadequate. The report focuses on cancer risk, which generally happens over decades.
Understated are the more immediate serious health hazards for elderly residents with heart and
and respiratory issues, and children with immature respiratory systems that will manifest
far sooner. The Commission should not accept the report's unsupported statements regarding
air contaminants as true or complete. High levels of dangerous particulates will be generated
during this project, and the increased vehicular traffic during and after occupancy. A safe
level of PM2.5 exposure for sensitive populations is 12 micrograms per cubic
meter. That level is already exceeded on moderate air quality days. The huge
project will be put in the community at risk for nearly five years. The proposed
mitigation measures are deficient. The health risks are substantial and serious.
please consider drastically reducing the size of this project and requiring
real-time air monitoring to protect the surrounding vulnerable community. Thank
you. Thank you. Next is Russ Gray and then will be David Atkin, Mike Heller
and Tak Mizuno. Good evening commissioners. I'm Russ Gray. I'm also a
to a resident of Viamante, and this item relates to the earlier discussion of Builders' Remedy,
a good discussion.
We respectfully urge the commission and the city attorney to carefully consider whether
it is appropriate to allow this project to bypass local land use controls under the Builders'
Remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act.
Under state law, cities that have a housing element and substantial compliance with state
requirements to retain their authority to apply local zoning and planning standards
to affordable housing projects, as you know.
Walnut Creek worked diligently and in good faith to bring its housing elements into compliance,
and as Samara outlined and clarified, the City developed and implemented the necessary
policies and programs and submitted them to the State.
The State ultimately approved Walnut Creek's housing element on October 24th, 2023.
project applicant submitted the preliminary application for this
project just a few days before that approval. A reasonable case could be made
that that the element had been de facto approved and implemented and only admit
at that point and only administrative processing delays and mail transit
delays between the city's submission and the state's formal approval caused the
project yet to be considered under builders remedy. It's important because
Because the project raises numerous community concerns you're hearing about, including health, safety, scale, density, and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods.
The loss by the city of local control over land use does not serve the interests of the community and future residents.
The Accountability Act allows substantial compliance to be determined not only by the state, but also by a court of competent jurisdiction.
We respectively request that the city seek judicial confirmation that Walnut Creek achieve
substantial compliance when it submitted its housing element, then it was later approved
by the state.
If a court confirms that, then the applicant's preliminary application was filed after compliance
was achieved, the builder's remedy would not apply.
Thank you.
Thank you.
David?
My name is David Atkin, and I am a resident of Iamante.
Shadelands Drive, a two-lane road, is inadequate for peak demands in the future.
There is no way to add left turn pockets.
A vehicle waiting to turn left will create a backup.
If oncoming traffic is similarly blocked, gridlock occurs.
This already happens and worsens when traffic from Ignacio Valley Road detours on to Shadelands.
Ambulance calls to Viamante are common.
There was an average of seven per month between August 1 and December 31 of last year.
Each response requires the arrival of two vehicles, a ladder truck and an ambulance.
Theoretically, emergency vehicles have right of way.
In practice, gridlock will hamper emergency response on narrow Shadelands Drive.
I observed a 10-minute ambulance delay on Oak Grove Road during construction of Chick-fil-A.
The report discloses that access to some driveways may be limited because vehicle cue lengths
on shade lands are estimated to extend longer than a football field during the morning peak.
The driveways that remain post-construction serve major traffic generators.
A queue that clogs the only roadway access to a senior facility on a daily basis creates
a public health and safety issue because it will impede the simultaneous response of two
emergency vehicles.
No access or traffic mitigations are being required beyond the preparation of a future
maintenance of traffic plan.
Sufficient planning must occur before project approval to demonstrate the public health
and safety will be maintained.
This includes unscheduled EMS access
and continuous ADA compliant pedestrian paths
throughout the five years of construction disruption.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening.
I'm Mike Heller.
Thank you for being here this evening.
I want to add comments on the issue of fire and EMS response.
Vehicle miles travel metric is all about reducing carbon footprint
It has nothing to do with a narrow two-lane street like Shadelands Drive
Which is already congested at various times of the day
Our ambulance needs are increasing
Partially because the State Department of Social Services has changed several
regulations that will require more ambulance calls to come to Via Monti.
The two new bicycle lanes that are proposed will be wonderful for bicyclists.
So the EIR hopefully says that ambulances can just turn on their lights and siren and traffic will melt away.
Presumably that's by leaping over the bicycle lanes and getting up on the 10-foot wide sidewalks.
It's not clear where is the traffic going to go to get out of the way.
Congestion today results just from someone trying to turn, someone trying to parallel
park or pedestrians crossing.
The pedestrian crosswalk is needed and a good idea, but the fact is, on a small narrow road,
There's no alternative for traffic to make its way along the street.
Disappointing is the lack of mitigating measures proposed that address this issues of congestion
and public safety response along shadlands.
All of the mitigation measures are during construction.
That's a start.
doesn't address the longer-term problem. Thank you. Thank you.
Tech Tech Mizuno. Following will be Patricia Betancourt, Laura Pauley, and
Trans Brooks. Travis Brooks, sorry. Okay, thank you for this opportunity. I am
Tech Mizuno, also resident of the Amante, and I would like to second the comments
by Mike Heller, especially, well, that's what he talked about is traffic issues.
Some of my concerns are submitted in my comments on the, written comments on the draft EIR.
I understand, regarding traffic, I understand that the CEQA does not consider level of service,
but I firmly believe that this is a responsibility of the city of Walnut Creek.
On the issue of public services, my concern is on water supply
as it affects fire safety.
The DEIR focuses on fire department response time while deferring the question
of adequate fire flow to water and fire departments.
I found the EIR lacking in providing quantitative assurances that is flow and pressure.
having assurances for the fire services while maintaining service to Villa Monte.
We have a sprinkler system.
We also need flow and pressure.
Please also clarify the size of water mains in Mitchell and Shadelands drives.
The main in Shadelands has been variously described in documents as both 12 and 24 inches
And just as a point of clarification, the agencies, Contra Costa County Water and the
fire department are responsible agencies, and I'm sure they have it under control, but
I think it really should be documented.
Thank you.
Patricia.
Good evening, commissioners.
My name is Patty Bittenbender, or Patricia.
I am co-chair of the Villa Monte Resident Council.
Some years ago, City approval was granted for a senior living community to be the first
residence project in Shadelands Business Park. That became the Amante Senior Living, home
to 250 residents, seniors. More recently, approval was granted for another senior community
across Mitchell. That project may fast become a reality. With the pending approval of the
Mitchell Town Homes Project, for me, comes a sense of betrayal. My expectation was that
the Walnut Creek City Commission would provide some protection for our community of seniors.
We are the first, and as far as I know, only residents in shade lands. We have been good
neighbors in the community utilizing businesses in shade lands and neighboring shopping centers
with minimal automobile use. We believe that adding another senior community would be similarly
beneficial to the surrounding community. Additionally, senior housing opens the way
for sales of single-family homes, which we need.
I understand the need for more and affordable housing in urban areas. The problem is the
introduction of the extraordinarily dense MTP that will look and feel out of place in
the neighboring areas. It will result in increased traffic, auto and bike, and decreased safety
for drivers and pedestrians, especially seniors.
Viamante residents walk the orchard's bimodal pathways many times a day to grocery stores
for exercise to enjoy the lovely grounds around Viamante. The bimodal pathways have become
more dangerous with the increased presence of children on electric bikes. This danger
will increase exponentially when MTP is complete.
mitigation aside, please remember that the average age of Viamante residents is mid-80s.
For many, they will live their last years in the dust and noise of construction and
cannot move away as we would incur a large financial loss.
Laura?
Oh, no.
You're Travis.
Yeah, Travis Brooks.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Good.
Not Laura today.
Thank you, though.
Sorry, Travis.
That's fine.
Hi, everybody.
Hi, everybody, Travis Brooks, I, for the last 10 years,
have lived in Woodlands in a house about 2,000 feet.
I just checked on Google Maps from where this project will
be.
My daughter still walks to Vali Verde
under the beautiful view of Mount Diablo.
I just checked Zillow and Redfin before this meeting.
And selfishly, was very surprised and pleased
to see that the value of our home and the cost of our home,
according to those sites, has skyrocketed by more than 50%
in the last seven years.
So instead of being overwhelmed with selfish joy,
I'm troubled because that means we're
in the middle of a really serious crisis.
These housing prices are unsustainable and untenable
for young people that are in the same position I
was in 10 years ago.
For them, it's impossible to buy a home
and start building the equity that
has been the linchpin of the American dream
for the last 100 years.
And the number one reason for this crisis
is a lack of supply.
New housing for the last 50 years has been denied
or not even proposed because of a not in my backyard mindset
and the interests of existing homeowners
having a veto over any such projects.
Endless environmental review that's not necessary,
endless requests for small changes to the project
that ultimately just killed the project.
and that's why we're in a crisis like we're in now.
The bottom line is, as the staff report
very accurately reflects, you are required by state law
to approve this project as proposed.
They don't even have to make any changes.
They've been very accommodating
and proposed a very nicely designed project
that I look forward to seeing.
And just to end, that doesn't mean
that we get to a bad result here.
The existing office building,
it's a no longer very desired use.
If you wanna know what it's gonna look like in 10 years,
just look at the office building on Citrus Circle
that's vacant, dilapidating,
and often has RVs in the parking lot.
That's not the community I wanna see my daughter
to grow up in.
I want her to be surrounded by vibrant housing.
We've got Laura, Mark Orcutt, and Ann Meyer.
Good, good, good evening, Chair, commissioners.
Mark Orcutt, president and CEO
of the East Bay Leadership Council.
We're a non-profit organization on a mission to strengthen the economy and improve quality
of life across the East Bay.
EBLC supports this project because it turns an underutilized office site and parking into
much-needed housing along a major transportation corridor in a city with access to jobs and
opportunity.
We need more housing in places like this.
aging commercial properties into homes,
strengthens our economy, supports sustainability,
and expands access to opportunity.
We understand their strong opinions about the project,
how the project came forward.
The builder's remedy process has generated real debate.
But EBLC evaluated this proposal on its merits.
Traffic concerns along this corridor are understandable.
Fortunately, the environmental review conducted
that concluded that transportation impacts
would be less than significant.
And EBLC supports thoughtful mitigation or applicable.
Simply put, housing near jobs, retail and services
is part of the solution to our traffic
and affordability challenges, not the cause of them.
For those reasons, EBLC supports this project
and encourage you to advance it consistent
with the staff recommendation and state law.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm Anne Meyer, I'm a resident of Viamante.
I don't have prepared remarks.
What I do feel is that when you look at this project,
I know the stacks, the figures and so on,
say one thing, living there is another thing.
We already have enough traffic on the roadway.
Can you imagine an 800 cars or less
leaving around certain times to go to work.
We have all these families coming in with kids.
And it's not, I don't have the figures,
but I do know exponentially or experientially
that it's going to be a real problem.
I look at the houses that you've proposed,
I know that even Viamante had a lot of negative things
when it was built.
But these houses, they look on each other.
They're, when you look at the buildings,
there's only windows on the front and back
and they look at more houses.
They don't have any kind of view.
They have, you know, a sort of closed in.
They're actually cages.
So this is not the kind of house that I would like to see.
And if you were standing in my shoes
looking at this housing project you'd probably feel the same way. Next three
would be Ryan McMahon, David Blackwell, and Bob Ashmore?
Ryan? Yep. Hello. So yeah my name is Ryan. I live in a downtown Long Creek a few
blocks away. I've lived in a lot of different cities across the east bay and
I love Long Creek the best. I plan to stay here for a long time. I just wanted
to say, this is somewhere where I'd like to live, potentially,
if this ever does get built.
Me and my wife, we really do like downtown,
but this could be a place where we can get a little bit more
room, and there's still a lot of great amenities in that area,
too.
And then also, we only have one car,
and then I ride my bike a lot, so we wouldn't add a lot
to the traffic, as well.
A lot of my friends have had to move to cities far away,
which has increased our commutes
and affects the Earth in bad ways too,
because they're driving so long.
Like somebody mentioned cages,
they're staying in their cars for two hours a day,
sitting in a cage, right?
So being closer to jobs,
being closer to their community,
I think is really important.
My wife actually works for the county too,
and a lot of her co-workers don't even live
in Contra Costa County,
because they can't afford living here.
So I know these are not gonna be like the most affordable,
some of them will be,
but they'll be more affordable than what we have right now,
you know, like then allow the homes in the area.
So yeah, I do feel for the Viramontay residents
and the construction that these will provide,
I live in an apartment right now
and there's construction right next door
and it is really tough to deal with that.
And this is gonna take a really long time to build.
So I think we should do everything we can
to make sure that we limit the effect
to those residents living there during this time
because that is really, really hard to deal with.
So yeah, thank you so much.
David.
Good evening commissioners.
My name is David Blackwell.
I'm a long time resident of Walnut Creek.
I live in the Shady Glen area for the last 17 years
and raised my family here.
I'm also a land use partner
with the Allen Macons firm in San Francisco.
I've been with them for about 27 years,
but I'm not here in an official capacity.
I'm not here representing any part of this agenda item.
I basically have no dog in this fight.
The reason I'm here is because I love Walnut Creek
and I strongly believe in responsible planning.
And what does that mean?
Well, in my view, the core essence of that
is following the law.
And in this case, the state law is what governs here.
It's been ably laid out in the staff report,
without question, SB 330, the Density Bonus Law and the Housing Accountability Act, we
use them for all of our projects because they are so important to the production of housing.
And they've been strengthened over the years because the housing crisis has worsened.
And so these laws are essential to the construction of housing and we can't go back to the days
of business as usual where subjective complaints would be enough to derail the project.
Now the only way that you could possibly deny this project or reduce it is to meet one of
the statutory findings, which again, staff laid out, and it boils down to this, is there
a specific adverse impact to the public health or safety?
And that is not just, you know, a complaint by somebody.
It has to be based on real specific criteria, and those findings simply cannot be met here.
So, in sum, in my view, if you want, if you are going to follow the law, you really have
no choice but to approve this project.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is Bob Asphore and I am a resident of Biematte.
I would like to start by identifying some interesting phrases that I read in the EIR
concerning health and safety, sensitive receptors.
This refers mostly to the very young and the elderly who would be most vulnerable to the
air pollution that this project will be generating for about 4 or 5 years. Specifically, PM2.5
and PM10 are listed. PM stands for particulate matter 2.5 and 10 relating to the size in
microns or micrometers of the air and dust particles. Since we cannot see anything smaller
than 35 microns with the naked eye, all of these particles are invisible to us, but when
airborne are easily inhaled and capable of penetrating deep into the lungs and into the
bloodstream. Leaving the EIR and moving to Google, I searched for health and environmental
effects of particle matter PM, specifically PM 2.5. Here is a short description from the
EPA. Tiny particles, big impact. And here's their short list of provable
effects. Asthma, bronchitis, COPD, increased risk of heart attack and strokes,
cognitive decline, and their separate list for small children, premature death,
reduced lung capacity, lung cancer, impact to brain health, and none of these are
reference in the EIR. The EPA's recommendation remediation is to wear an N95 mask at all
times during possible exposure. Back to EIR, there is no mention of supplying anyone an
N95 mask at any time. Thank you for your time.
Thank you. Before we move on, we still have a fair number
of speaker cards to go.
I'm going to ask to, been asked to do a 5-minute break.
And so we will resume at 809.
Continue.
If you have your seats, please.
It causes more trouble than we want.
Ladies and gentlemen, we're about to continue.
If you take your seats, please.
It's right there.
It's what it's for.
If the secretary would read the next three names, we'll move along.
If we could have everybody to sit down, please.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's time.
The next names will be Matt Reagan, Cheyenne Gomez, and Tim Cattrill.
Perhaps you can repeat those once it's quieted down a bit.
Can you repeat those names?
Matt Reagan, Cheyenne Gomez, Tim Cattrill.
Next three speakers, please a long walk
Chairman commissioners, my name is Matt Regan. I'm here representing the Bay Area Council
We're a business sponsored nonprofit representing the largest employers in the Bay Area
I manage our housing policy and as my boss likes to say it's all my fault
I'm not here to sing the praises of the project you have our ladder that sings the praises of the project
I'm here to talk about the process and what has led us to this point the very imperfect process that's led us to this point
This should be a dialogue between the community and the project sponsor, but it's not, and there's a reason why it's not,
and it's because rooms like this for the last 50 years have killed good projects.
And we've had the resulting housing crisis has meant that the state has had to step in and remove discretion from local governments
because rooms like this have consistently killed good projects and resulted in a housing crisis of unprecedented proportions.
3,000 Californians every single year move to Texas because they build homes in Texas and people can afford to live there
200,000 people every single day
Drive into the Bay Area from their homes in the far-flung exurbs of Patterson and Tracy and Mantica
Burning gas on their way here two hours in the morning and burning gas on their way home two hours in the evening
So that's why the state has had to step in and take away your discretion
If you refuse to approve this project, this is obviously compliant with both the
Housing Accountability Act and the Builders Remedy. Your city attorney has
said so, your staff has said so, you've heard from outside counsel that this
does apply. If you just choose to ignore the law, the state is required to fine
you ten thousand dollars per unit. That's state law. That's four point two million
dollars you will have to pay to the state, a minimum of four point two
million dollars. If the state finds that you did it willfully, you chose to ignore
the advice of counsel, they can then add punitive damages on behalf of the
developer. Then the state can take away discretionary funds, transportation and
public safety funds. This has happened in other states, if you, in other cities if
you want to test them. It is precedent. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Cheyenne
Gomez. I am an assistant business manager and the president of the
Electrical Union, IBEW Local 302 here in Contra Costa County. I'm here tonight
representing over 150 Wanna Creek households who belong to the plumbers,
electricians, the sprinkler fitters, and sheet metal unions. We have a few
thousand members within Contra Costa County. For the last 30 years we've worked
to support projects that promote sustainability and equity. We were the
first trade organization in the nation to support a county's urban growth
boundary to help encourage developments like this one in front of you tonight. We
are partnered with developers like Signature Development to gain approvals
and build over 60,000 housing units in our county. With that history it's no
surprise that we are here tonight asking for your support for
this project. We appreciate that Signature Development has taken the time
to hear and be responsive to concerns raised by the project's neighbors. Just
thank you for your service to the community and we hope you say yes to
the project. Tim Cottrell, hearing none. The next three would be Nick. Nick Guchen,
good one. Sorry, good one. Susan Wolf and Michael Cotsos. You're not gonna need a
timer for me tonight. I'm gonna keep it quick since there is a stacked house
house here. But good evening, commissioners. My name is Nick
Goodland. I'm the business manager for plumber's steam
fitters, local 159 located in Martinez. Like a few others here
in the room, I'm here representing the plumbers, the
electricians, the sprinkler fitters and the sheet metal
worker unions that cover Contra Costa County. I come to you
tonight to speak in favor and ask for your support of the
project before you. The commitment and partnership from
developers such as signature homes has helped in the
successful careers of several apprentices where they get to start their
career and hopefully at the end of it reach a term all of us want to get to
and that is retirement. The project will be able to offer opportunities to our
apprentices that have grown up in in your community and also will be able to
leave their stamp and imprint on their with their career in in this community
as well. All we hear about is the ongoing housing crisis and here's a project that
will help solve a portion of this housing crisis.
I strongly feel that this project is right
for Walnut Creek, and I ask for the support
by advancing this project tonight.
Thank you for allowing me to speak
and the opportunity to be here.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Susan.
My name is Susan Wolf.
Whoops.
And I wasn't planning to speak tonight,
but I feel motivated to endorse what my fellow residents
at Viamante have said, and so I won't repeat that.
I'm just gonna give you some, thanks Mark,
some bullet points of things that occurred to me
while I was sitting here.
I haven't heard a word about asbestos,
asbestos mitigation, how it's going to happen,
when it would happen, and where would the vehicles be,
and where would vehicles be who are working on the project,
where would the construction vehicles be?
People who are on management coming to view the site,
Are they going to do street parking?
Is that going to further aggravate the conditions?
Because there will be giant vehicles and small vehicles
coming in there.
I'm not opposed to having a project like that.
I'm just opposed to the density and the ugliness of what I see
when you get off the perimeter.
It's my eye.
It looks ugly.
And I see kids riding their bike in the street.
I don't know what the sidewalk looks like.
Can a mom push a carriage on the sidewalk around the complex?
I couldn't tell.
This is beautiful, but it's the only one place it happens
that I could see.
I'm doing this now on my own.
My fellow residents at Viet Monte might not
like what I'm about to say, and management might not like.
but I would like to invite any of you
to come visit my home in Viamonti
and see how it can be done right
with lots of open space,
lots of places to have lunch outside
during the warm months.
We love it.
You know, the servers come out with our food,
we're sitting in the beautiful spaces.
Come visit me at Viamonti.
And also just one word.
I had lung cancer a few months ago
and I don't want to have to deal with all that stuff.
Thank you.
The next three speakers will be Jan,
Jan Warren, Susan Lee Vic, and Ray Greenleaf.
Good evening commissioners, city planners,
fellow Long Creek residents.
I've heard a lot of good comments,
I'm not gonna repeat, expressing concerns
about building density, about the loss of most of the redwood
trees in this development.
But I'm coming here as a retired engineer,
a man that I'm used to working with facts and with data.
And I read this EIR.
It was very long.
It looked like one of my old lab reports,
backwards and forwards.
And the one thing that struck me,
which I thought was odd for such an important project,
was there was so much language of affection,
not language of fact.
For example, the traffic survey.
I have given some feedback,
and I would like to speak perhaps with Mr. Spencer
on another occasion about some items,
some sentences that just didn't make sense to me
in comment rebuttals in the final EIR,
specifically page two dash 11.
There's a comment that says,
Well, we know that the traffic is unacceptable going eastbound
at both rush hour intervals on Ignacio Valley Road.
It's like that already.
So having this project is not going
to be accountable for creating traffic.
So therefore, we're not going to assess this as an impact.
But it's indeed an incremental impact
to safety and to pollution.
Adding, I don't know how many cars out on the road,
going in the same direction now, out to work and back,
and on the weekends.
So, yeah, there's a lot to cover here.
The second thing I wanted to say is,
I really implore the city of Walnut Creek
to use social media for making transparency
of our planning issues.
Facebook and Nextdoor are available,
and they should be accessible
because our city council members use them.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Jen?
Oh, I'm sorry.
Is that Susan?
Yes.
I'm Susan Leevick.
I'm the President and Chief Executive Officer of Joy Bound People and Pets in the Shadelands
at 2890 Mitchell Drive.
I want to start with two comments.
One, Viamante is exceptionally beautiful.
It is one of the loveliest communities, senior or otherwise, that I have ever seen.
And I can understand why you all have a very high bar.
I also know that I'm the mom of four kids
and a little baby granddaughter.
They would be thrilled to live in Mitchell Drive Town homes.
And their standards just can't be quite as high as yet.
Their main standard is affordability.
And I really believe that this project delivers
a nice home for the money.
I will also tell you that we have 140 employees
at Joy Bound People and Pets,
many of them early career or mid-career,
But even the late career professionals, veterinarians,
and other highly skilled professionals
have a hard time finding a nice affordable home in Walnut
Creek.
So the very idea that those 55 affordable units or some
of those market rate units could be housing
for those good folks who work for us at Joy Bound thrills
my heart.
I will also say sustainability is tremendously
important to our organization.
Our CFO here has crafted a multi-year sustainability plan for us.
And let me just invite all of you and all of the future residents of Mitchell Drive Townhomes
to come and enjoy the beautiful outdoor space in our lovely memorial gardens.
We're happy to extend that to this community for those folks who can't have access
to large leafy shaded beautiful courtyards such as Villa Montay and Joyce.
But we're going to share ours with you.
The other thing is that on sustainability it's a walkable, a true walkable community.
Literally you could live and work and shop in Shadelands and not need a car and that's
tremendously important and a great value to all of us at Joy Bound and we hope to the
city we're strongly in favor of approval.
Thank you.
Now Jan.
There you go.
Now Jan.
Hi.
I'm Jan Morin.
I live in the Woodlands and we were fortunate enough 40 years ago to buy a home there, which
we could never afford now. Walnut Creek is a highly desirable city with a
wonderful quality of life and a lot of people want to move here but we just
don't have enough housing and we particularly don't have enough
affordable housing. I have participated in supporting affordable housing for
over 10 years here in Walnut Creek. I participated in the development of the
orchards, which people, oh, look, we can't see our, you know, squirrels running around.
I mean, they had a lot more meetings than this one, which is a benefit.
And I love having the Viamante folks in our area, and I love all the, I mean, you can
hardly get a parking place over in that shopping center.
So it's been very successful.
The engineers did a great job.
We were all, people were concerned about, you know, turning into traffic and they did
a great job of making it work for people.
How am I doing?
Am I out of time?
You have about a minute.
Oh, okay.
Wow.
So anyway, the Orchard is the same center that offers these amenities for those that
live in, the Amonti.
My neighborhood in the Woodlands was up in arms about that via Monty, and some of them
may be living there now, I don't know.
So anyway, this is a well thought out project.
I mean, I live just off of Oak Grove in Peach Willow, I'm going to get the dust and so forth
as well.
I'm not young either, but I am thrilled to be able to welcome younger people, people
downtown, we want to have a little more space. People who can come to Walnut Creek and enjoy
it as much as the rest of us. So thanks for the project I support. Thank you. Is it Ray?
He left. Okay. The next three would be Linda Thompson, Sally Doherty, and Eunice Swenson.
Good evening commissioners. My name is Linda Thompson. I'm a resident of Viamante Senior
living. With over 400 townhomes proposed in the Mitchell Townhome project, it is fair to assume
that an additional 800 plus vehicles will daily pour onto our local streets and ultimately
onto Vianna, excuse me, Ignacio Valley Road which is already heavily congested.
Even now, at times during the daily commute, the traffic is backed up onto Shadelands Drive,
blocking the entrance of Viamante's senior living.
I'm concerned about the impact the additional traffic
will have on the senior residents
and our ability to safely use the crosswalks
around our community as well as resident access
to and exit from our underground parking.
With the increased traffic backing up on shade lands,
I am particularly concerned about emergency medical services
and fire department vehicles being able to enter
and exit via Monte's driveway to assist in medical emergencies,
which occur frequently in the senior community.
This is a major safety issue. I would hope the Planning Commission would see
the value of requiring the Mitchell Townhome Project
to reduce the number of townhomes proposed
and require them to do more to mitigate the increase in traffic
they will create. Thank you. Thank you. Sally?
My name is Sally Doherty. I live in 2801 Shadelands and I am opposed to the Mitchell
townhouses because I think they are so dense. Right now we have a beautiful business park with
trees, streams, park-like features. It's going to be replaced by mega housing project with very
little green space, fewer trees and no streams in an area that is called the
orchard or the shade lands, neither of which will be present. I want to remind
you that housing projects in San Francisco and Oakland are not fine
places to which anyone wants to live and that is going to be your legacy if you
submit this project as is to Walnut Creek. Eunice? Good evening, everyone. I had
prepared something and written it out on my computer and then I tried to print it
out and the printer didn't work. So I just have to speak. My story is just a
a very personal one.
And I understand that housing is very important.
And I live at Villa Monte.
I live on Shade Lens Drive.
I recently have been diagnosed with a lung disease.
And so my concern is, what is it going
to be like to live there for four or five years
and have dust and particulates and all kinds of things
pouring into my apartment.
And so it's just a personal story
and that's all I have to say.
Thank you.
We have four more.
Barry Tivas or Tieras?
Lana Georgieva?
Of course.
Oh, oh, who's that Barry?
Lana?
Steve? Steve with the green ink. R, yeah, it starts with an R, the rest of it.
And Cheryl McKenna, please. Thank you. I would like to say that
I live in Viamante and I've been living there for five years
and it's a wonderful place to live. And I think
Walnut Creek is a great town and I'm an engineer,
a retired engineer and I admire the fact that the streets don't flood when you get heavy rains
and that the traffic lights work most of the time. And I've dealt a lot with governments in my career
and I think you guys are getting bamboozled to be pushed into an excessive use of this builder's
remedy I don't think that was the builders remedies I'm all for affordable
housing but I'm but I don't think I think these guys are taking advantage of
you and they could build a suitable complex with affordable housing without
elbow to elbow buildings and without destroying the the the green space that
We have.
I mean, that's one of the nice things about the Amante.
We have these, we look across the street
and they've got these huge trees,
which do wonderful things for all of us.
Everybody knows that.
And they're gonna cut them down.
There ought to be a way, if they were all sensible
and not just looking to make all every buck that they can
to preserve those trees
and still have an affordable, a doable project.
have affordable housing. It seems to me that they're just trying to push push it
to the envelope and elbow to elbow units with no care at all about the about
fitting into Walnut Creek. Thank you. Thank you. Oh no, that's Cheryl. Cheryl?
Good evening. My name is Cheryl McKenna. I'm the chief financial and chief
operating officer for Joy Bone people and pets. We're located at the corner of
Mitchell Drive and Oak Grove Road. I've heard and very much respect our
Viamante neighbors, comments, and concerns this evening but I'm here to
express my excitement about this project and the positive energy it promises to
bring to our corner of the Shadelands community. It represents not just a new
development but a welcome infusion of life and activity and possibility into
an area that has been overly quiet since I started there. I've been with Joy Bone
for six years, and during that time I've watched our organization and our community
grow and evolve, yet we continue to sit next door to this vacant lot and across the street
from an office park that is overly, largely empty. These underutilized spaces have long
felt out of sync with the vibrancy and optimism that defines the mission of Joybound and the
goals of the Shadelands Park. Joybound's campus is a place where people
come to make connections. The revitalization this new development will bring aligns beautifully
with that spirit, and increased activity in the area will not only strengthen our neighborhood,
but also deepen the sense of community that we at Joy Bound work hard every day to foster.
And I'll admit, selfishly, that I'm thrilled about the potential for new volunteers, new
supporters, new families coming through our facility. The more engaged our community becomes,
the more people and pets we're able to help. Thank you for the opportunity to share my
support, and I believe this development will be a positive step forward for the Shadelands
community.
Thank you.
Two more Lana. Is Lana here? Last call for Lana. Oh, is Lana poor? Okay. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Laura Patch.
I'm shocked to be the last person speaking.
Hi, everyone. I'm Laura Patch. Use she her pronouns. As many of you know, I'm very involved in Walnut Creek
government and politics and community. I sit on the Transportation Commission and I've run for City Council twice.
And I say that because I love Walnut Creek.
I grew up in Contra Costa County and really care about it.
And when I got to move back, I chose Walnut Creek
because of how much I love it.
And yet in the last three months or so,
I have actually seriously been considering moving
because it is very difficult for me to afford to live here.
This is the exact kind of housing project
that this city needs.
This medium density allows people my age younger
and those around that age to have a home
that feels like a home is not an apartment,
but still has a community feel to it.
I believe that the developer has been extremely accommodating
to the requests coming from the Design Review Commission
and from other comments.
The playground, for example, is really fantastic.
There is a very similar complex that is on my road.
it's been a great addition to my neighborhood area.
It's unincorporated, so it's not a feasible place
for me to live.
I'd have to give up everything I listed
about being involved in the community.
I also just wanna address, yes, traffic will change,
but some of the earlier comments
that have been mentioned about 800 cars seem outdated.
I don't know anybody my age who is a two-car family.
We are talking about 400 units that most likely you will have at most 600 cars and they're
not all going to be moving at the same time.
It's not like 800 cars are going to be during those commute hours.
So I really hope that you pass this and just to note that on the waivers, the setbacks
are really what allow for this medium density to exist.
So I hope that that doesn't become a sticking point.
Thank you all.
We have one more speaker that just dropped a car and it's Whitt, is it Whitt?
Yeah, buzzer beater there. Thanks for it. I appreciate it. And if it means anything, I'm a zero-car family, so...
Good evening, commissioners. Whitt turned on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition. We're a member, supported, non-profit.
We have a case for housing across California at all income levels. We're super excited about this project.
just strong support. This is a common sense use of land over 400 units family
size units in high opportunity area and the affordability here is really a
standout being double the city standard requirement. It's gonna be huge for low
income families and it's really just a meaningful commitment to the the
families and essential workers that want to stay in Walnut Creek. And beyond
housing the neighborhood benefits are really real. Open space, dog park, critical
safety upgrades, these are direct responses to neighborhood feedback and
they make the shade lens area safer for everyone. And a final reminder that you
have a legal obligation to approve this project. It's sustainable, family friendly,
and aligns with the city's housing goals, so we urge you to move it forward. Thank you.
Thank you. That was the last, I don't see anyone else racing up to the podium. So I
Actually, I won't close the public hearing yet.
Before the applicant has ten minutes to respond,
I wanted to ask the traffic engineer if you would come up to answer.
Yes, and Chair, if you would keep the public finger open for the application.
I backed off that.
I just wanted to, as has been pointed out,
the VMT, the vehicle miles traveled, is useful for CEQA,
or perhaps not for other purposes of evaluating traffic,
but you did more studies than that.
Did you address the impact of or what the impact
of the current office use is and how that compares
to the proposed project on emergency vehicles in particular?
Sure. I will address that.
Can you hear me?
Okay. So the chair asked about, can I address comments
that were made specifically about emergency vehicle response times,
and also how that compares to the current situation, and then how that might change
with the project as proposed, if I can paraphrase that.
Thank you.
Okay. So we did take a look at that, and I'm going to back up a little bit because it relates
to several things that we have in our analysis.
And the office park generates more trips.
And I know a lot of folks have moved in to Viamante
in the last several years.
And the office park has not been pushing its leasing
as much as it was previously.
So it doesn't feel like it's exactly.
But if nothing else changed, the office could just say,
this is what we're going to do.
We could lease it.
And we have to look at that as a condition
of what's the potential for the office park and then how does that compare to what's being
proposed now because those are basically the two conditions. What we have now is kind of we're
coming out of this post-pandemic condition that is a little bit different. The project does have
the potential to generate fewer trips on a daily basis and in a peak hour basis but as I said
said earlier it does change the directionality a little bit.
So again with residential more outbound in the morning, more inbound in the evening.
Overall though it's a significant reduction in trips and that's what's in both the CEQA
and the non-CEQA traffic analysis.
And I use that to start off the response because it does matter.
When we looked at safety in the CEQA document, emergency response times in particular, we
have a couple of ways to look at that.
is when we look at the intersection analysis in the non-SQL report, and it shows in tables,
there are several tables in there, I happen to have table 12 from the traffic report in
front of me, it shows a comparison of a no project to a project condition. Generally
there aren't big differences, they're very similar. In most cases the project results
either in a similar or a slightly lower average delay. But more importantly is at all of these
intersections, it's not showing failure conditions.
Now, with all respect, I know that everyone's like, well, that's not right, because I go
out there and I'm waiting through a cycle after a cycle or it's getting hard and I can't
get out of the driveway and so forth.
We're not saying there's not traffic out there.
What we have to evaluate in a project is what does this project do compared to if the project
was not there?
That's the basis, and that gives us the apples to apples type comparison that we are prescribed
to do. And the project, quite frankly, would have not a very noticeable result compared
to an office park. And that's really the bottom line if you wanted to interpret all
of the documents and everything else with respect to traffic. Speeds, delays and so
forth, response times for emergency vehicles compared to each condition, whether it's today
or in the near-term future or in 2040, it's going to be, it's very, very similar.
And that's the essence of it.
So where there are, where there is congestion, where there are some cues or whatever,
if you don't have the project, you'd have that same condition.
That's the, in our comment response and maybe it wasn't phrased as eloquently as it could have been,
but the essence is the project's not resulting in the effects.
And that's what you have to evaluate is what does this project do and then what can you
condition this project to do based on its own merits.
Outside of that, if there are concerns about traffic and safety and delays and driveways
and sight lines or whatever, those exist regardless of the project.
We have to separate, you know, concerns and everyone's concerns are valid.
People who live here, people who drive here, people who work here and so on.
But it's, what is the project doing?
The project's not changing response times.
In general, what we also found, now, if we saw, like, hey,
things are so terrible, an emergency vehicle can't get
through in a situation, that is something we would flag.
Because that is obviously an issue.
That's a safety effect.
And if it exists today, if it exists in the future.
That's not to say there are times now when it's not
congestion and you have those situations.
But the project's not going to change that.
What I did hear in some of the comments also, which I do hear a lot, you know,
I've been doing this a long time and I work on a lot of different projects
in different communities, construction period which however long it lasts,
those are in secret terms considered limited.
They're short term, they come and they go, right?
I heard a comment earlier about when Chick-fil-A was under construction
and then now there are some issues with traffic
and circulation during the construction period.
Each construction project has its own construction traffic management plan, amongst other things.
That is something that the city prescribes and that also talks about where, how do you
bring in the bulldozers, how do you bring in the construction equipment, how do the
workers access the site, what are the hours of construction, what's the traffic lane control,
do you have to relocate a bus stop, what do you deal with sidewalks, you have continuous
pedestrian activity and bicycle activity and so forth.
All of that is prescribed in that document so that you maintain that access throughout
the construction period.
I believe that's also monitored, there's requirements, they're pretty strict actually.
I want to just sum it up by saying, it's not that we're saying there's no traffic or that
things aren't going to be different from a transportation perspective, but the project's
effects are pretty much the same as if the project was not there compared to the office
And that to me is very telling in terms of, you know, an analysis.
Thank you.
If I could expand on that?
Yeah.
Could I ask Jana from First Carbon Solutions to come up and maybe give us a two-minute
walkthrough of CEQA and the process to get to the MMRP, and then specifically the alternatives
how they were generated and evaluated, and then the relationship of the air quality mitigation
measures with the MMRP. Okay I'll try to get I'll try to get to all that. Let me
start with it's kind of a CEQA process overview. Okay so CEQA requires any
project that requires discretionary approval so it requires a City Board or
County Commission to approve. It requires that jurisdiction to look at a project
via a whole host of topics which we've shown before and within that host of
topics, there are very specific thresholds. And that is where we define what is in CEQA
considered a significant impact. Your concerns that you've raised are all valid. Under CEQA,
we have very specific and narrow thresholds of what is considered a significant impact.
And then we have very specific items that could be considered as mitigation, and that
mitigation must have nexus, meaning that the impact of the project must create a significant
impact in terms of those thresholds to be able to require mitigation.
So under the law of CEQA, that is how you can require mitigation, and that is how you
conclude that there is a significant impact.
So that's basic CEQA primer.
What was the next item?
That's the alternatives, how you arrived at the alternatives and whether they're evaluated.
Right.
So under CEQA, you are required to evaluate alternatives.
And the point of those alternatives is to reduce any significant unavoidable impacts,
Or if there are significant impacts that are mitigated to less significant to try to create
those, make those come down even further, even though they're not significant.
So for this project, we had two alternatives that we considered outrightly.
One being no project, and that's kind of what Mark was speaking to in terms of just the
existing office park stays.
Would that reduce some impacts?
Yes.
But there are no significant impacts to reduce.
It would just be status quo as it goes.
As somebody mentioned, all of the mitigation measures, the majority of the mitigation measures,
if not all of them, required for this project are for construction, and they ensure that
during the construction period, there are not significant impacts related to air quality
and the health related to air quality.
There's not significant impacts related to noise.
There's not significant impacts related to construction traffic.
So under the no project alternative, that's one situation.
The other alternative that was considered was a reduced density alternative, and that
only gets tricky because this project was submitted under the builder's remedy.
They cannot change their project application by more than 20 percent.
So what we did is we said, well, okay, if they can't change their application by more
than 20 percent, let's reduce the project by 20 percent and evaluate that project.
Did it reduce the severity of some of the less than significant impacts?
Yes.
Did it eliminate any of them?
No.
You wind up having the same mitigation measures.
So those were the two alternatives considered directly in the AR.
We also consider alternatives, they're called considered but rejected.
And that means they're not fully analyzed because they're simply from the outright infeasible.
One of those alternatives was a senior housing option, and that is essentially unfeasible
because of the builder's remedy application issue.
Proposing senior living specifically housing, restricted housing on this site is not allowable
by the existing general plan designation or zoning.
Therefore, if someone were to propose that as an alternative, they would have to go back
to the start, provide a new application and request different approvals, a general plan
designation, re-designation, zoning, rezoning, that's a whole different application process.
So it's not feasible, and so it wasn't fully considered.
Okay.
Anything else?
I just-there was some discussion about air quality and tier-most of the mitigation measures
that are already in the MMRP related to air quality.
Yeah.
construction activity. Yeah, we actually have our air quality expert here tonight and maybe she can come up and speak on that.
Hi, everyone. My name is Jackie. I'm a senior air quality scientist with First Carbon.
So yeah, the air quality, the construction related impacts were analyzed in accordance with Bay Area Air District
guidance and recommended methodologies.
The Bay Area Air District is the agency with authority over air quality throughout the nine-county Bay Area.
And the impacts were analyzed against thresholds that Jana mentioned and the analysis concluded
that with implementation of mitigation, the impacts would be less than significant.
The cancer risk, PM2.5 concentrations, and non-cancer chronic impacts would be below
the identified thresholds.
A note about the mitigation.
So mitigation error one requires dust control measures during construction.
mitigation measure two, air two requires the use of tier four construction
equipment on all equipment. Tier four construction equipment reduces emissions
by 90 to 95 percent so it's extremely clean construction equipment and that
would be enforced through the MMRP that was discussed earlier. There any other
questions on that? Anybody? This is a complicated topic and so I do have some
experience in this when you're doing this analysis the requirement is as such
that you literally have to put the manufacturer of the vehicle can you go
into that because that's that's important in in the mitigation measure so
I in the modeling and it's interesting because I'm reading air to and it
It literally discusses even the manufacturer, the identification number, the engine number.
And I really want you to go through that because your job is hard in the sense that they are
required to provide you literally the exact amount of vehicles, whether it's excavators,
skids, backhoes, with the identification number, the horsepower, so this is
serious how you're modeling. Can you go, but I am not an air quality expert, and
can so after you explain that, can you also describe the power and what
backmed and CARB do as part of all that? Yes, maybe I'll actually start there. So
So the Bay Area Air District and I was employed there for 10 years actually prior to joining
First Cartman, they have regulatory authority granted by the states public health and safety
code so they are a public health agency.
They have regulatory authority over stationary sources of air pollution throughout the nine
county Bay Area.
So that's things like gas stations, refineries, dry cleaning facilities, industrial facilities,
of that nature. And the Air Resources Board at the state level has jurisdiction over mobile
sources of air pollution such as cars, trucks, trains and so forth and construction equipment
because those things move throughout the state so it wouldn't really make sense to regulate
those in a local area. So setting the framework there, I'll talk a little bit more about the
modeling and your question. So your question about documenting exactly the equipment that
will be used in ensuring it's in compliance with this mitigation measure.
That actually falls on the applicant to do that, and they will actually have to provide
all of that information as part of compliance with this mitigation measure, and the city
will be charged with enforcing it.
In terms of how we model it, we use air quality modeling software, which can look at different
scenarios and different types of equipment and the emission rates that are associated
with the different types of equipment.
So what we'll normally do is model a project's air quality impacts using average construction
equipment and we'll see where that lands.
And in fact, we did that within the EIR as well and found that impacts would exceed thresholds.
So we then modeled it assuming that construction equipment would use tier four emission standards
that was sufficient to decrease air quality impacts below thresholds. Does
that answer your question? Yeah thank you and then and then last but not least
that just and that's kind of like the final point of it is that the submittal
and proof of implementation of all of that equipment is required prior to
be having an issue with the
public.
I don't know if you would be
able to grade.
Absolutely in fact, the M.M.R.P.
states that the method of
verification would be
preparation of a construction
management plan which Simmer
spoke to, submittal of proof of
implementation during
construction.
That would be verified prior to
issuance of a grading permit or
building permit during
construction.
And the party responsible for
verification would be the city
of Walnut Creek community
development department.
Thank you.
else? Can I ask a follow-up on that? So I just want to make sure that our
community is able to follow along. So one of the things that I'm looking at on my
screen right now is exhibit C to attachment 1 of the MMRP. So this is the
table that shows the mitigation measure. Then there's a column for method of
verification, timing of verification, who is responsible for the verification, and
then there's columns for verifying that it was complete for the date and initial.
So I just want to make sure the public is aware that that exists and it does
include everything that's been talked about here. And I know during public
comment it was mentioned tier 4 diesel engines and that is listed on here as
as well under the MMAIR-2.
So, I just had a question about is there ongoing monitoring of the PM2.5?
There is not ongoing monitoring of the PM2.5, no.
So the way that you determine that is through the modeling.
So we modeled the PM2.5 construction-related emissions in accordance with Bay Area Air
District recommendations and found that with use of this lower emissions equipment, tier
four, the PM2.5 concentrations would be below the health-based thresholds set by the Bay
Area Air District.
Thank you.
One other thing I also wanted to just point out for the community, under the mitigation
measure air one. One of the requirements is that the construction contractor posts a visible
sign with a telephone number and a name for anyone to contact for any dust complaints.
And that would go to the Bay Area Air District actually. And they do have enforcement officers
who will come out and investigate complaints.
Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me. We're not taking questions from the audience.
Okay, we've been buying everybody breakfast before long.
So, just if you, you've had a chance to speak and we're trying
to get at what answers we can.
So, thank you.
Any other questions?
Are we in still public comment?
Yes. Yeah, I know.
Okay, I think everybody's, okay, thank you very much.
Thank you.
Now I'll ask the applicant, has 10 minutes to respond, comment.
Thank you, Jonathan Fern, once again, I don't have 10 minutes worth of rebuttals.
I think the experts did a good job of describing a lot of the concerns that we've heard.
All that is to say is that we, like you said, we've agreed to the mitigation monitoring
response plan.
We will perform the construction management plan prior to pulling a grading permit.
So all the stuff that you heard that we have to do, we'll do.
will have the disturbance coordinator listed on the site.
As it relates, I did hear a comment about asbestos.
We'll do an asbestos survey prior to tearing the buildings
down where you go in and figure out
how much asbestos and lead-based paint there is.
Then you'll have a special remediation contractor
that will do that work.
We will do that as well.
And then lastly, I'll just mention about trees.
We don't want to tear down a lot of trees, but we did look.
We took that very seriously from the community and from the DRC.
Even after the DRC asked us to, we went back, looked at every tree to see if there was any
we could save that were in addition.
But just as it laid out with our utility plan and our site plan, it just wasn't feasible.
So we were happy that we could add more trees, but unfortunately, we couldn't save them.
But we certainly looked at that.
So.
Thank you.
All right.
I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission.
We're asked to kind of to a two-step process, first look at the EIR and I would suggest
that we can discuss the EIR, deal with that, and then pick up the various other resolutions
to go.
So with respect to the environmental impact report, I have comments, somebody might want
to start.
Okay, I can start.
Sorry, I was trying to be polite and let everybody else start.
One of the things that I like to look at in an EIR is if the MMRP includes things that
are more than what I like to call the bones and the stones. It's a saying, right? It's,
you know, the bones is which they have in there. If you dig and you find something,
is it a bone or a stone or just the pre-construction surveys? And so if there's anything beyond
that for me that that's, you know, to my fellow commissioners, that's kind of how I like to
look at an EIR is, is there anything beyond that or in an EIR are we passing something
which is called a statement of overriding considerations, meaning that there was no
mitigation at all.
And that was one of the first as I poured as an engineer, I poured through all the documents,
I'm in a room full of engineers here, I heard a couple of you, so thank you for coming out
here. But that was that was for me a positive thing to hear was that it was
it wasn't things that were were not passing or reviewing statement of
overriding considerations meaning that there's just no way that that
mitigation, pardon me, that impact could be mitigated, and that the MMRP wasn't
anything beyond the bones of stones as I call it or the pre-construction surveys.
sorry. Am I not loud enough? I'm sorry. Did you guys hear my comment about how I
love that there was engineers in the... Okay, at least you heard that one. Okay, I'm
gonna I'm gonna synthesize everything that I just said. I'm sorry, I always tell
my children not to yell at me and now I need to speak up. So, essentially,
to synthesize what I just said, the best thing that I always look for in an
EIR when I'm reviewing it in an MMRP is that there's no statement of overriding considerations,
meaning that there's no possible way that that impact could be mitigated.
And to me, I did not find that.
So that was extremely important.
And then the other thing that I always look at for EIRs and the subsequent MMRP's is that
there's nothing beyond the regular bones and stones, that type of pre-construction survey
would kind of lead to many of the folks comments that would go beyond the issuance of grading
or building permit or during construction, because then that kind of has a red flag alert
to me of that is interesting that it could not be mitigated notwithstanding the general
construction. So I will say that about the EIR for that topic. If anybody wants to add
something.
So I just want to make sure we're clear for the public about what it is that we're doing
here as far as the environmental impact report.
So please correct me if I say anything wrong here.
We are not sort of litigating the science here.
We're not scientists that are checking on the validity of the report.
whether we are certifying that the EIR was in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, CEQA, we acknowledge that the studies were in fact done by these independent
sources and that the findings were based on that data. Did I say that correctly?
Right. That's correct. And you're looking at whether or not there's evidence, you know,
substantial evidence to support the conclusions which you can draw from the studies.
In the comments. Commissioner Kwalk. All right, so I wanted to say kind of my
thought process at looking at the EIR and how I how I was approaching this. So
I do accounting for my day job and auditing and a lot of what I look at is
risk management. What are the risks of things that can go wrong when we
undertake projects or other big reports like this.
And then once we identify those risks, how do we address them?
And so what I like about the EIR is that it seems to follow the process for me looking
at, okay, what is the proposed project out there?
How does it compare to the existing conditions?
And then what are the risks that come with it?
So, for example, a lot of people here have mentioned air quality is definitely a concern
and that has been identified as a risk to be looked at and to be addressed.
And so, with the mitigation measures in place, I do like the, okay, this is the condition
that's at hand that should be addressed, and then this is what the, this is the steps that
are going to be taken to address those conditions to reduce the risks that are inherently present
in such a project of this undertaking.
So, I think because of that risk assessment that's been done
and the steps that have been taken to address those risks,
I think it seems to me that the EIR has done its due diligence
and has identified the appropriate steps
during the construction and the eventual existence
of the project.
Let me just summarize a bit.
There's three things that can be found in the EIR.
One is, there's no significant environmental impact, which is fine, that works.
There is a significant environmental impact, but it can be mitigated to a point where it's
not significant.
And that's 10 or 12 or 14 situations here where that was the case.
And in those cases, the applicant has provided assurance that those mitigations will take
place in the process of the construction.
The third type, as Vice Chair noted, is it's a significant environmental impact.
It can't be mitigated, but because of some overriding consideration, we're going to do
it anyway.
Okay.
There were none of those.
That's very helpful to be able to have confidence in the EIR.
So, I would invite a motion.
Actually, just before you do that, I'd actually advise if the Commission, you know,
if you're finished with the EIR components that you go on to discuss the project and,
you know, if you're ready, then you go on with the motions
at the time that you finish talking about the project.
Yes. There are a reason for that.
And the reason for that is it's generally a good practice to reach that conclusion at the end and also just from a technical standpoint under the Permit Stream Mining Act, if you certify the EIR, it technically triggers a time by which the city has to approve a project.
And so unless there's a specific reason for that, then I'd advise you just continue with this.
Thank you for the explanation.
I'll table that suggestion and move to consideration of the project itself.
I'd like to start.
I'll take a shot at it.
I guess I would refer to a different project.
Our predecessors in this position, going back decades, have tried to make Walnut Creek
a place to live, work, and play.
And losing the work aspect of it
by removing a possibility of a office complex
is limiting that.
That said, the State of California has demanded
we honor the builder's remedy with that.
And, but looking at the project,
it looks like a very decent project.
and it would vary, be a good asset to this community.
Thank you.
Mr. Moran.
Thank you, I'll just turn the microphone.
Thank you for everybody that came out and spoke and wrote.
We've heard concerns about the traffic and the schools
and the safety of the trees and all that.
And I just wanna know that we take all this very sincerely.
And so thank you.
my thoughts are that we have to operate within the constraints of the law, right? And that's
state law, which limits what we can do. You've all heard the reasons. And CEQA demands that
we just look at the impacts and then look to see whether they've been mitigated. And we have to
make a determination based on that. And the other thing is that this is an aging office complex
that is not going to come to its full use anytime soon because the world has changed
and we need housing in our communities and the way I see this is that a lot of people are not
going to be happy with the outcome and we have to make judgments just based on all the factors
involved the community impact to the neighbors and the need for housing. So I support the
project. I would support a motion to approve it. I'll let my fellow commissioners speak.
I just want to know that we hear you and we're working within the constraints of what we've
been given. And it's not an easy decision. And thank you. And I think that we can move
forward.
Commissioner Clark, uh, clock.
It's not easy.
So I want to thank everybody who came out and took the time to comment on the EIR, comment
on the application, write letters, be part of the process.
It's really important that we have this kind of community dialogue.
That's what makes Walnut Creek a great place, because we can respectfully discuss different
opinions.
I personally am a really strong housing advocate.
It surrounds everything that I do in my personal life to really look for us to increase housing
supply in Walnut Creek.
I think that this is a well thought out project.
I feel that the developer has done his best to respond to community concerns and I think
when I think of my kid who wants to live in this area and can't afford and many people
I know whose kids want to live in this area and can't afford, this is the kind of project
that we need to move forward.
So for that, I support it.
So thank you.
Mr. Kwok.
All right.
So I was, I'm actually very excited for this project.
To me, as someone who is at the age where I'm looking
for housing, and I'd love to stay in Walnut Creek
for all the reasons that you all have spoken to
for the community, for the access to amenities in the area,
The schools that are here, the parklands that are available,
all of that makes Walnut Creek a great place to live.
And I enjoy it, and I do wanna stay here.
But at the same time, at the same time,
there's also my own life priorities.
Where do I wanna see myself living in the next 10 years?
Where do I see myself raising a family?
And if it were possible,
I'd love my answer to be Walnut Creek.
Stay here.
Just as you all selected Walnut Creek
to be your city to live in.
So Mitchell Town Homes represents that opportunity
for people like me, my friends who have been looking
for housing, people that I know who I went to college with
that eventually left the state because they couldn't afford
to live in the Bay Area where they grew up with.
And it's very hard for their parents
because they have to go very far to visit their kids
when they live abroad.
It would be wonderful to bring their kids home
and to have people be around their parents.
I'm fortunate enough that my family is still here
and am able to be nearby to them,
but even my siblings are feeling the pressures
of the housing here and the impacts of it
with where they're starting their lives,
where they're starting their careers,
and whether they can be close to their parents,
to the grandparents, everyone that they care about.
So, housing is an important issue for me.
And I do appreciate this opportunity.
And I think that it does, it does,
the MChaletown homes does represent an asset
to the Walnut Creek community,
especially the Walkville communities of the shade lands.
So I do support this project.
Mr. Cownd.
Thank you.
I too want to thank everyone
who has participated in this process
and who came out to speak tonight.
We learn so much when we hear
the different perspectives and that's how we can come to the best decisions in in the city that we
love. So thank you to our union members who talked about how this project would bring apprenticeships
right here in town for people who live here. Thank you to our younger people who are talking about
wanting to be able to live here and what it means and how life may be different. You might not have
two cars or necessarily even one car so being able to picture what that looks like from real people
who live here and want to stay here is very helpful for us to be able to picture what it will look
like when people move in to this community and hearing from Joy Bound to be able to hear from
an employer that's walking distance who has employees who would like to live and walk to work
as well. So all of that, I think, gave us a little bit of a better picture of, you know,
what this could actually look like.
And I want to thank the people from Viamante who came here to talk about all the different
concerns, particularly around construction and health questions around air quality, right?
It's so important that we monitor those things and that we do have a process and that we
are transparent about it so that if we run into problems in in the midst of construction
that everyone the whole neighborhood can can protect us right and can report it and that we
have the Bay Area Air Quality District who has those standards and they will come out and inspect.
So I think I have learned so much tonight from all of you and hopefully you've all learned
from each other as well about what this project can look like and how it can be kind of a win-win
for everyone here. So, and I also want to thank the developer for being responsive to the community.
That was not a requirement given the laws that are in place for this particular project
and it didn't have to happen, but I think your cooperation and trying to be responsive
in the ways that you could have made it a much better project. Just looking at the design review
comments about areas where people can congregate and picnic
and play.
The original design had a place where people could trip and fall
down into the middle of the thing that was just
supposed to gather water, right?
We know what that's like from the parking lot of the orchards,
unfortunately.
And so being able to really be responsive and be
willing to invest in that change and other changes,
like adding the playground, you know, those types of things
really make a big difference.
So I'm definitely supportive of the project.
As it stands, I think it is needed housing,
and I think it has become a better project
because of everyone's input.
As you leave, let me make my comment that with a big crowd,
sometimes things can get a little out of hand,
sometimes people can get very passionate about things
and say things perhaps they regret later.
This is not that kind of group.
This has been a very civil and constructive discussion.
And a lot of the points raised allowed
us to get answers to some of those questions, which
helps us to make the decision as well.
So thank you all.
Vice Chair Nitti?
I'll keep this super short.
There was a lot of comments, which
I thought were beautiful, about children and moms
and seeing that I have two kids under seven.
It, I, as a mommy who moved here from San Francisco
living in a 700 square foot apartment
with a toddler and I was pregnant,
anything in Walnut Creek seemed beautiful
and loving for to raise my two girls,
which I'm doing right now.
And so to me as a mom, it meant a lot as an engineer also
to know that there was a lot of thought
that went into providing the silva cells,
which are pretty expensive underground chambers,
great for sustainability,
to be able to provide those areas for the kids.
And I know that sometimes you have to move up, right?
So that attached product isn't probably
what we're all used to with wanting, you know, bigger yards.
But I can assure you that in a lot of the developments
that I've seen, oh, is the lights going down?
Someone's sending a message, I think.
All I would say is that those alley areas that you see, a lot of times they act as Woon
Orfs, which is a livable street, and I've seen it in action and other developments.
And so I just, I do want to address that because that was one thing that was brought up about
Where are the kids going to play?
Where are the moms going to have their stroller?
So, I do support this project whenever you're ready for that.
I think we are getting to that point.
I think we want to do the EIR first.
There's a motion on the certification of the EIR.
I move that we certify the environmental impact report
and adopt the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
A second.
Yes.
Commissioner Clark.
Yes.
Yes.
Turn on my microphone.
Commissioner Count?
Yes. Commissioner Klop?
Yes. Vice Chair Nighting?
Yes. Chair Anderson?
Yes. Motion, the ayes have it.
Motion carries.
All right, does someone have any motion to deal
with the design review, the vesting tentative map,
density bonus, the treatment removal,
and the trip line encroachment permits?
I'll do it.
All right, I move that we adopt.
Okay. We're done.
Go ahead. Draw it.
Okay, go ahead.
All right, before I do that, is it as amended
because there isn't an extra condition
at the end of the resolution?
Yes, it will be as amended.
As amended, okay.
So I move that we adopt the resolution
to approve the investing tentative map number 9683,
final design review, density bonus, tree removal,
and tree drip line encroachment permit
for Mitchell Town Homes Project.
Okay, for the discussion, call the roll.
as amended. As amended. Commissioner Kwok? Yes. Commissioner Strongman? Yes. Commissioner Moran? Yes. Commissioner Cownd? Yes. Commissioner Klop? Yes. Vice Chair
Knighting? Yes. And Chair Anderson? Yes. I just have it. Motion carries. Thank you very much.
I know it's completed. If you would, those of you who are leaving, if you would do so quietly and
If you want to discuss it further, the hallway is available,
but we'll move on to the next item. Do you want to take five?
Let's take five. Meet back here at 9 29. We have another hearing today.
It is on the Porsche dealership, plan development,
excuse me, plan development, rezone, design review, tree permits, and assigned
ordinance exception. Okay. I have a staff report. Yes. Switching
Gear's Simmergill again, City of Walnut Creek. We are here tonight now to consider the second item,
which is the Porsche Dealership and Service Center. It is a planned development rezone and design
review. It's a recommendation from the Planning Commission tonight to move the project forward
to City Council. And the applicant's team, Stephen Scanlon, and his team are here tonight, as am I to
answer any questions that you may have after the presentation. And to quickly orient you with the
The site, it is zoned service commercial which does allow automobile dealerships by right.
The site consists of three parcels that will be merged, that total 2.3 acres.
The existing site has a mix of older buildings.
There is a restaurant at the Massays, as well as some other underutilized buildings that
are vacant.
And the surrounding area consists primarily of commercial uses, however there are residential
uses on Barton Court directly behind the site, I guess if you can see it here, Barton Court.
And here's just a closer look at the existing site conditions and the buildings on site.
Again, just more photographs, here's the Massays Building, which is located right there, Fronting
North Main.
This is the other building that's also fronting North Main.
This is the building that you can see that is fronting Second Avenue.
And then there's additional buildings that are located further within the project site.
I have identified those with the STAR.
And now moving into the project information, this request for you tonight is a construction
of a new three level auto dealership for Porsche which will offer vehicle sales and service.
Furnish improvements are also being provided that include right of way dedication along
both furnishes, a new six foot wide sidewalk on Second Avenue and replacement of the existing
sidewalk on North Main Street.
And the request before you tonight also includes tree removals, new landscaping, new trees
These are also proposed, new signage, a sign exception is requested as part of this project.
This project did go before the Design Review Commission and overall DRC did support the
design and the PD rezone request as well and the sign exception, noting that it's in scale
with the development of the following comments.
All of these comments have been addressed as part of the revised plans.
is a condition of approval that does restrict right turn on second half for
for test drive vehicles and then the lights out basically the business
operating plan has been updated with the hours of operation the business will
close no later than 6 p.m. I believe all seven days of the week and all of the
all of the light fixtures and the lights that are proposed as part of this
project will be shielded and there will be no spillage off site from that. So
it's screened up to protect that the west property lines. And the conditions
those are typically standard conditions of approval that we have for all of our
projects but I believe the air quality we incorporated because they're asking
for this infill CEQA exemption and there was a memo that was prepared to
justify that there was less than significant impact, so it's associated
with that. And the CMU wall rendering and the fence details are provided in
this plan set. So tonight the Planning Commission is reviewing this project to
make a recommendation on the CEQA determination, the PD ordinance, the
design review and the tree removal permits. And this project is scheduled
tentatively for March 3rd, 2026 City Council hearing where City Council will
then consider the CEQA determination and consideration of all of the project
entitlements. So here is the existing site layout and circulation existing
conditions on site and this is the new proposal. Access will be provided from
both Second Avenue and North Main Street into this dealership and I just wanted
to highlight that this building is located approximately 30 feet away from the closest
residential neighbor on Barton Court, which will go into more detail later, but the CMU
wall that is proposed will also be located here, creating more of a buffer.
And so the project consists of two areas.
One is the main entry into the showroom.
And here is the service center arrival area where customers could drop off their vehicles
and the porter will take the vehicles in for service repairs.
And then the remaining areas that are highlighted here in orange are essentially Porsche staff
spaces, such as this is the ramp that leads up to the roof for inventory parking only,
so no customer access.
And this is the service shop access and the parts and delivery that provides access from
the back into the partial basement.
And here is the lower level garage entry, again, for employee use only.
And this is, again, for the purpose of storing inventory vehicles or employee parking.
I'll just quickly run through all three floor plans.
This is the partial basement, which is the ground floor.
It is located beneath the main showroom and the vehicle sale and repair area.
There are 87 vehicle inventory storage, and it also includes bicycle parking and other
support functions such as the interior car wash and park storage and again
for employee and staff use only and the entrance as mentioned earlier is off of
as you come on from North Main. This is the main floor which is organized in
three primary areas consisting of customer showroom and that also has
public restrooms that's located over here and then the service shop and 22
service bays are back here and all other associated support support support
spaces such as storage areas as well. And this is the upper level partial
open-air roof plan. This includes a secondary showroom right along here.
There are offices and lounges and the parking deck has 676 inventory spaces
available. So tonight the applicant is requesting a plan development rezone.
It's essentially to provide flexibility. PD provides that flexibility to make any
deviations to city standards while meeting the overall intent of the zone
which the service commercial zone does allow auto sales and service and this PD
is carrying over all of the other development standards and regulations
with of course redefining the FAR and then the definition of base elevation
for this project. And again these deviations remain consistent with the
overall intent and use of the current service commercial zone and all of the
remaining service commercial zoning standards will be carried over. And now
Now really just going into more detail of the request tonight, the .3 FAR is permitted
in the service commercial zone and the current code, the existing definition of FAR has limited
things that could be excluded and I have that entire thing pulled from our code which basically
this is the definition and there are certain things that could be excluded such as crawl
spaces and garages.
So the PD will provide that flexibility to exclude additional accessory-like spaces.
So as the PD already allows, these exclusions, the exclusions that are proposed tonight are
very similar to what the code already allows.
Just a more specifically more detailed, and this is what the proposal shows that we're
They're excluding basically the accessory spaces such as mechanical rooms, storage areas,
the vehicle inventory areas, stairwells, and the other change is the way the floor area
is calculated is currently it's you take the gross floor area to a net lot area.
of this project is to calculate that with gross lot area,
as shown here.
And here are basically all three of the floor plans.
And I'll go into the next slide.
I think it's a closer look.
Yeah. So all of the pink areas, which is essentially a garage,
like inventory garage, storage, tool shed, these type
but things are being excluded to meet that 0.3 FAR.
And everything that you see that it says contributing
is this area, which is all customer-facing
or customer-oriented spaces.
So this is required to meet the 0.3 FAR,
and this has all been calculated as part of that.
So why are we doing this is the big question.
Modern dealership layout basically has changed.
It's now multi-level where it integrates all of the operations into one single building.
And a large portion of that building area does include these type of support or accessory
type spaces that are not really customer occupied.
And our current city code is dated where it's built for single-story type surface parking
dealerships.
And I provided a photo below of the existing dealership.
As you can see here, there's a separate building for a lot of it is outdoor, right?
Like the service repair area is on the outside of the building.
And then they have a separate used car storage building.
It's really so it was at that time easier to calculate the floor area for just a showroom
which would then meet the point three FAR.
So basically this PD request will provide that flexibility to exclude those accessory
spaces from the FAR to really reflect what's functional and what is customer-oriented space
for this project.
And that approach does meet the FAR intent and accounts for the modern integrated operations.
And this approach essentially allows for more efficient operations and efficient use of
land.
Now moving into the other request as part of the PD rezone is the height.
The existing height allowed in the zone is 30 feet.
The site, I didn't have a better photograph, but basically the site really drives the height
variation for this project.
It's lower along this end where the Massay site is, about 124 feet.
And then it moves up to 135.
Where I have the star is like the highest existing slope that occurs in this corner.
And the way the current code reads is the base elevation is defined as the existing
or the way we measure height is basically the existing or finished grade, whichever
is lower and measured to the highest point of the building.
So the request tonight is really to the base elevation will be defined as the highest existing
grade on the project site.
And that highest existing grade does occur in that southwest corner as I identified with
the star.
And here if you see, so if we measure it from there, it's 135 foot and then we go to the
top of the building, it's allowed to extend up to 165 feet.
But that is still within that 30-foot above the base elevation, so it meets the 30-foot
height limit, consistent with Measure A. But it's just the way it's being measured from
the higher point rather than the existing or finished grade, which the current code
allows.
I also wanted to point out that we've used, for other similar sloped sites, we have used
the same approach. For Hilton Garden Inn, Oakmont, and Sprouts, they also had slope
sites so we measured, so we're not introducing something new. This has been
done for other projects where we've measured from the highest existing grade.
And here are just some renderings of the beautiful dealership. I'll let the
applicant really elaborate more about the design intent, but it does meet the
city's design review standards and guidelines as they are providing a
variation in materials, there's articulation, the proposed
landscaping, their street trees, as well as whatever areas that they could
incorporate landscaping into to really beautify the site, and all of that does
meet the design standard. The primary materials are the black and gray ribbed
metal panels and the silver metal panels along with dark gray stucco and of
course the entrant I think I have a better better slide yeah this one shows
this is really the corner of North Main and Second Avenue that really shows
those clear story windows this is where the showroom entrance is and the other
request tonight is tree removals there are a total of 19 trees that will be
removed. 13 of these trees have been administratively approved by the city
arborist due to the size species or health of the tree or some were
undersized and could be removed without a permit. The four remaining trees that
do require a recommendation tonight for City Council to consider for removal are
the three valley oaks and one pistach. I have highlighted those in the or circled
those with the pink and the three highly protected trees,
since they're being removed,
the applicant will be required to pay the value
of the trees because they are highly protected trees.
And that is a condition of approval in your agenda packet
in, I believe, the attachment two.
And same goes for the offsite neighboring trees.
These will all be preserved.
And if there is any damage or during construction,
There are conditions of approval in place for that as well.
And here is the proposed landscaping plan.
There are a total of 21 new trees being proposed.
Of those, 12 are the street trees
that range in size from 24 to 36 inch box.
And the remaining, I believe, nine trees
will be scattered throughout the site.
And there's also five gallon shrubs and ground cover
of various types that will be also incorporated
into the project.
And here is the location for the proposed steel fence.
And this is that split-phase CMU retaining wall
that will be installed.
I believe the applicant's team has a presentation,
and they'll go more into detail of how that height varies
because of the slope on the site,
and how it would look if you're looking at it from,
how high it will be if you're on the west side on Barton Court. And the other request tonight is the
sign exception. The Walnut Creek sign ordinance allows 200 square feet of sign area for any
single commercial tenant or business and the applicant is proposing two wall signs
that total 91 square feet in size.
However, the sign that is going to,
will be installed along North Main Street because it's
that ribbed metal panel system, a backer panel,
a flat backer panel is required.
So that takes that total of 145 square feet
because the code requires we count the entire thing
as the sign area.
And the proposed total sign area for the entire project
that includes the monument signs will be 275 square feet and that's why the sign exception is required.
Here's the proposed freestanding monument sign that'll be located closer to the North Main
Street frontage. It is six feet in height and less than the 25 square feet that's allowed for
freestanding signs. And here is the second freestanding sign. This is more
of a wayfinding or directional sign. It will be located closer to the service repair area,
closer to that second avenue side and it is five feet in height and a total 14 square feet in size.
And staff does support the sign exception because all of the signs are in scale with the building
and provide, are needed to provide that adequate identification.
And I'll just quickly go over the parking.
There are 48 surface parking spaces for customers and vehicle display.
The blue area you see is, this is for customer parking and the lighter yellow or orange color
is for vehicle display.
And there are a total of 123 spaces for inventory vehicle storage space inside the basement
as well as the roof.
And I also wanted to point out that under AB 2097, this project is exempt from the parking
requirements as is within a half a mile of, a portion of the site is within a half a mile
of the Pleasant Hill Barge Station, however, the applicant is providing sufficient customer
parking as well as employee and inventory parking. So as part of the
design review entitlements the project is required to meet the city's
objective design standards and guidelines and this project meets all of
those guidelines with the exception of the two that I'm going to discuss here.
The automobile sales guideline it requires that that the display parking
Fronting North Main cannot be uncovered so it needs to be covered or integrated
into the building element. The applicant is requesting a waiver to that or an
exception and staff does support that exception as the primary showroom or
entrance on North Main Street. It's the closest, the outdoor display is limited
and is secondary to the indoor showroom.
So, this will just provide or improve visibility,
streetscape, transparency,
and also a better customer experience for someone
like me who's driving by and I see a Porsche parked outside.
And the next one is for any new building, the parking needs
to be at the rear or the side or within the structure.
And in this case, the applicant is providing surface parking stalls that's located along
the primary frontage, but that's also necessary and staff does support that because the front
entrance of the showroom is the closest. The parking that's being provided is right in front
of that showroom entrance, which is the customer entrance. And the project does comply with all of
of the other design review standards and guidelines.
And this project is subject to the environmental review and after analysis and evaluation,
the project did qualify for a categorical exemption.
Under infill development project as the project, the auto dealership does comply with the general
plan and zoning. And the proposed modification is minor in nature and it still meets the intent of
the code. It is less than five acres in size and the site is currently paved and has been
previously developed so there's really no, the site doesn't have any value as a habitat for any
endangered species. And as part of the CEQA review, first the city to really
analyze and determine that that we could apply or recommend this infill
exemptions. We required the applicant to submit technical studies related to
traffic, noise, water, and air quality. And all of those studies are provided as
part of your agenda packet tonight and the results of all of those studies has
determined that it will be less than significant impacts. And the fifth
criteria to qualify for infill exemption under CEQA is that the site is
currently served by all required utilities and that is the case for this
project. And with that staff does recommend that the Planning Commission
adopt draft resolution attachment one providing a recommendation to the City
Council on the class 32 exemption as well as the second draft resolution
which is attachment two providing a recommendation to City Council on the
project the PD ordinance rezone as well as the project project entitlements
listed on the slide and we did receive several public comment letters and I
And I believe all of those letters have been incorporated into the agenda packet, and there
are extra copies in the back for the public.
That is all I have, but I am happy to answer any questions.
All right, good.
Any questions?
Commissioner Strongman.
Yeah.
Thank you for the presentation, very detailed.
I'd like to talk about the turning out, I guess it's the no right turn exiting the facility
on second, I'm sure Porsche will try its best
to enforce that.
Is it possible we have a official city sign
on the other side of the street is no right turn?
I think I will ask the city engineer Matt
to address that because that's not sure
if that's required or we can do that.
Hi, Matt Redmond, city traffic engineer
for city of Walnut Creek.
So your question is if we can put a city sign
facing the second avenue that says.
No right turn.
No right turn.
In, but facing which way?
Facing the property.
Oh, it would face, it would be,
if you're coming out of the service area,
I assume it's the service exit.
Yeah, the parking lot.
It's no right turn.
so that they will not go down Second Avenue.
So, you know, we put signs in the public right away.
And so if that would be on the city, on the property,
then it would be for them to put.
And I believe that this came up at DRC
and that they agreed to put that sign up
for a no right turn for test drives.
And I think you're proposing for everyone
through signage.
Because I think the neighbors would prefer that,
that all the traffic goes down towards Main Street.
Yeah, so given that this sign would be facing the property,
I believe that would be a suggestion for the applicant.
Okay, thank you.
I have a couple.
Can you go back to the signage slides there?
I wasn't sure that you mentioned extension of the sign
that's counted as part of the sign?
For signage?
Could you explain what that is?
Sorry, can you repeat the question?
You mentioned that 200 square feet allowed,
and they're each 91 and a half square feet,
except that something else is included
on one of the signs as part of?
Oh, yeah, the backer panel.
So I was really trying to show that both
of these primary wall signs measure the same.
They're 91 square feet in size.
but because this area here, which is, I guess,
shown right there, is a ribbed metal system panel.
It's not a flat surface.
So in order to install signage on that,
they needed to incorporate a backer panel,
really like a flat surface, right,
to mount the sign on it.
So I was just trying to show,
because of our city sign ordinance,
it requires when we measure sign,
we measure the entire area.
So because of that reason, it's the backer panel,
it's incorporated into that total signage. So that takes their number up slightly higher
because of the panel.
So I look at the rendering there, it appears that that backer panel is the same color as
the wall.
It's black, correct.
So basically you wouldn't see it.
Correct, yeah.
And then I had on the two redefinitions that come up.
The first one is the base elevation and it said that, you know, it has to choose the base elevation
that with the plan development that has a, is the, covers the intent of the requirement.
And it says that picking the highest point on the site is more accurate and reasonable.
And I'm not quite following why that is.
I mean, it seemed to me that you could pick the bottom of the site.
That would also be quite accurate, whether it would be reasonable.
I mean, it's both depends on how you're building the building.
But I'm not sure why, it sort of makes it sound
like the high point is the obvious choice.
And I'm not sure why that would be.
Well, I think because there's topographical constraints
and as mentioned on the slide,
the slope drives the height variation.
And it is lower on one end.
So if we were to measure the entire building off of that side,
then obviously it would exceed because you're measuring it
from the existing or finished, existing grade,
which would be to the highest point
would then appear to be taller,
even though it's not taller,
but it's because of the slopes.
So, just hypothetically,
if the topography was reversed,
you had a low point at the intersection,
went up the back.
So most people would see it,
their view of it would be on that corner at the low point,
which now could be, if you take the highest elevation,
you'd be looking at a much, much higher building
than would be anticipated.
So is it because that high point is actually right
at the point of greatest visibility
that that makes the most sense?
So we use this technique for buildings such as this
that are taller than what our existing
our codified base elevation definition would allow.
This building is taller than what would be allowed
using our standard base elevation.
So this gives us the flexibility
to allow modern dealership is what it does.
So I'm just trying to think of the rationale
for choosing that particular base level.
Aside from it allows a taller building.
It's sort of obvious.
But the building height is measured from that highest point.
So regardless of where the foundation of the building is,
which is likely going to be lower than that point,
you're still, you know, whatever's below that
is below the line and is not counted towards building height.
Okay.
And then with the FAR, you redefine that to exclude spaces.
Aren't those the types of spaces that are often excluded
or are they usually counted?
If there were not planned development
where you could redefine them.
Under the I guess the definition of rentable floor area,
it does exclude these type of like support spaces
or storage areas.
So in our code, we do have something that.
In this case it looks like
because it's including about two thirds of the building.
It's an expanded list of of net out and out uses.
and how you use the space, and again, it's a reflection of a modern dealership.
Okay.
Other questions, comments, or staff?
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
I'll ask the applicant to send you up to 15 minutes if you wish.
I'm Steven Scanlon, applicant.
Simma, you covered everything.
I'm going to keep this short because I know it's late.
So why we're here?
Why we're here, retention of the dealership in Walnut Creek, consolidation of the facilities.
As Simmer mentioned before, it's on multiple facilities.
We've integrated all into a single dealership.
Relocation from leased land to owned land, which will allow us to stay inside the city
much, much longer. We had about five years left on the current lease and then we're
going to be looking for space. And then obsolescence avoidance. We're at that point where the old
dealership is no longer meeting the brand standards and if we don't upgrade, we have
to go. Right now, Porsche is at a generation 5 dealership. This meets and exceeds the
extent the intent of a Gen 5 dealership. It's a brand standard upgrade. We've integrated
the program. We've reprogrammed and replanned the dealership to meet current operational
needs. What typically happens with dealerships is as they age and new facilities are required,
they sort of tuck them in where they can, not necessarily where they should be. So the
The footprints become incredibly inefficient in operation.
What we've done is, I shouldn't say we, Gensler and Allegro have replanned, reprogrammed
the site and integrated what would be oftentimes external facility internally and captured.
So you don't see it, you don't hear it.
It doesn't exhaust.
It's treated all inside the facility, which we think is a better way to operate a modern
dealership.
And then additionally, there are new diagnostics and other components to the dealership that
have been added that currently don't exist in the existing footprint.
It's a planned development, and as I won't rehash everything that Simmer went through,
she did a good job of covering it.
We think that we've updated the dealership zoning consistent with what the SC zone allows.
And as Simmer mentioned, there are things in dealerships today that 25 years ago weren't
and a really back of house, they're not part of the public facing space.
The other thing that I think she touched on, and I think this goes to your comment about
grades, this is a really challenging site.
It breaks in a bunch of different ways.
In order to integrate the program, bring it all inside, we think we picked the most efficient
footprint with the least visual impact.
But it does capture that corner, which is the launch-off point.
So we think that this is a minimalist approach to this particular site.
As Simra mentioned, we're looking for an infill exemption.
We provided four studies, traffic, air, noise, and water.
we have a reduction of 320 trips. For air, our construction operations and health risk
assessment are all below allowed limits. For noise, construction was less than significant.
Ground vibration is less than significant. And operational noise is either shielded or
enclosed or attenuated.
So we think we really minimize the impact
to the surrounding neighbors.
And as for water, all of our stormwater,
both for construction and post-construction,
meet all of the water resource control boards
permit requirements.
So we're extremely compliant on that.
And now I'll let James take you through the...
Thank you, Steven.
Good evening, everyone.
My name is James Spence, I'm an architect with Gensler.
We're gonna start by thanking everyone
for taking their time to hear us tonight,
especially this late in the evening.
Simmer did an excellent job walking you through a project,
so I'm just going to hit the very high-level notes
and keep this brief.
Can I use this guy?
Yeah.
And have you highlight it like this?
Ooh, I gotta get me one of these.
This is nice.
All right, so, here I'm gonna, it's not on full screen.
There we go.
Okay, so just to walk you through a few of our high points,
to walk you through our project.
So I wanted to start with site access.
We have two, as Simmer mentioned,
we have one off of North Main,
here towards the north-east corner,
and then one in the south-west corner,
there on 2nd Avenue.
we have two main approaches for our customers for the site.
One will be those customers that pull onto the site,
they will park on the site,
and they will walk into our showroom.
The second is for the customers to pull onto the site,
into the service drive,
at which point the valets or the porters
will take their cars,
they'll usher them into either the shop
or into a service space,
which is located either in the basement of the building
or up on the parking deck.
So that's kind of our customer journey
that we have on the site there.
And then for the,
wanted to point out the fire lane that we have,
so you can kind of see it's located there
running from one curb cut to the next.
So that is going to be our fire lane.
We have extended the width of that
to adhere to the fire apparatus width.
That is the requirement by the city
or from the fire department.
The Western property line is something
that we wanted to take some time to focus on today
and that is the eight foot CMU wall that Simmer mentioned.
That takes place on the West property line here
along that drive and along that 30 foot building setback
that we have.
So that CMU wall will run eight feet off of the property
or off of the ground level.
So the elevation, it's a little harder to see
because it's small here.
But this is kind of showing an elevation,
if you were to look at it from the west side of the wall,
it will maintain that eight foot datum
from the ground floor or from the ground plane
as the shifts and grows taller as you move down the site,
down the property line.
So what we believe this CMU wall is going to do
is help block any noise that is coming from our site
And then also it will help with the light spillover
into the Western property line.
So we want to be respectful of our neighbors
west of our property.
So we feel that this sound barrier and lighting barrier
will be a good addition to our site for those reasons.
We have kept our loading zone
to the northeast corner of our site.
That's the space you see here.
That will be for parts deliveries,
also for the oil transfer that they have to have
on about a weekly basis.
And then speaking of signage,
just to touch on one signage point that Simr didn't,
which is the, we have the two signs,
the two large wall-mounted signs,
one facing North Main,
and then one facing Second Avenue.
Both of those will be internally illuminated.
The one on Second Avenue will be placed
a timer so that when the sun sets, the lighting levels for that sign are going to drop significantly
so that we, again, avoid any lighting spillover into the property west of us.
And then after that, we have our mechanical screening was the last thing I was going to
point out here, but that will be better shown on – and I'll go back – that'll be better
shown on our elevations sheet.
So we have all of the mechanical units that we have on our showroom rooftop and our parking
deck accurately screened with kind of the same metal panel that we're proposing for
the remainder of the building.
And then the next talking point I was going to hit on is just our accessible pathways.
So from each of our points of egress from the building, we have worked with the city
to ensure that we have an accessible pathway
from each of those egress points to the public way,
both on Second Avenue and on North Main Street,
which are shown here.
We also have our accessible pathway
to the dumpster enclosure in the northeast side of the site.
This sheet is showing kind of the existing grade
that both Steven and Simmer touched on earlier,
showing the significant drop and the modifications
that we needed to make to our design
in order to respond to this grading,
which is why we have our ground floor plane
is where the customers walk into the showroom
and the shop or the basement is where you enter
on the lower side towards the north of the site.
We are taking careful consideration with our site lighting
to make sure that we are avoiding any spillover
into the neighboring properties.
So we will be shielding all light fixtures
on our rooftop parking as well as our site poles too.
And then these are just showing the specifications
for those fixtures.
Simmer already did a pretty good job touching on
our types of parking throughout the facility.
So I won't repeat any of that.
And then just one more kind of tag for the materiality
used for the exterior elevations.
So like Steven mentioned,
this is our Gen 5 design for Porsche.
So we have a handful of materials
that we are suggested to use from the OEM.
We have our silver metal panel.
That's what we'll face that corner of North and Main.
So it's kind of giving that iconic Porsche dealership look
where all of the storefront end as well.
And then we have the Porsche black metal panel
which is the ribbed metal panel that Simmer mentioned.
It's more of a dark gray.
It's not entirely black but that's what's going to be wrapping the most of the shop
towards the rear of the site.
We will have an accent band of white metal panel that kind of runs alongside the main
entry point there.
And then the rest of the building, as I said, will be either the black metal panel or a
stucco that's painted to match.
And that about wraps up my presentation.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Any questions?
The applicants?
Commissioner Count.
Thank you for your presentation.
I think my only question is the way that cars come in and out of Main Street and second,
is it a one way or is it a two way if they can go both?
Both curb cuts will be two way.
Okay.
So then can you talk about what it is that you've agreed to as far as cars coming out
onto Second Avenue because I'm not, I'm still not clear if that's all cars.
No right turn?
On to.
Yeah.
I'll take this.
So there's been a lot of conversation about the Second Avenue entry, and I did, right?
Couple things.
Test drives will not go up Second Avenue, not only because the public doesn't want it.
I'm sorry.
because the public doesn't want it but it's not practical for the dealership.
It's a lie when you bring someone into a new car that they're not familiar with
and you run them up residential streets you're just asking for trouble so from a
liability point of view the dealership has no interest in driving test driving
up second out with a Porsche particularly that go out onto North Main Street and
then probably out on the 680 because people want to drive a Porsche right. The
The other thing is that currently, if people live in the neighborhood that are going to
the poorest dealership a quarter mile down the street, they come down 2nd Street, they
make a left onto North Main, and they go to the dealership, and they return the same way.
The only other trips that we would be creating would be trips created for test drives.
We're doing those up the street right now, and we're not going back into the neighborhood.
There's just no reason to do it.
We have no problem putting in a no right turn sign, if that helps.
But if there's a resident of Walnut Creek that wants to go up 2nd Street, they're going
to exit on North Main, they're going to make a right and a right and go up 2nd Street.
So I don't think we're creating any more trip or any more traffic on 2nd.
I think that's more of a fear than a reality.
questions thanks guys could I'm somebody tell me it's probably my fault for not
being able to find it the back the west side what is that is it the glass and
the and like the I guess let me if I'm standing in Barton Court which is this
the street the court just to the west of the west side of the building and I'm
looking you know if I got a shot through the trees what am I looking at? That
would be this elevation right here. So you're going to see you're going to see
the black metal panel, the roped metal panel. We have an overhead door, a high
speed overhead door that goes into our shop but that remains closed most of the
time and then this is an overhead door that leads to the service drive and then
this is the silver metal panel that's wrapping the showroom. And then to the west of that you're
also looking at a wall. Right. There's a wall. Eight foot wall. Yeah. Right. Which follows the
grade. Okay. And the panels, they're silver panels that are, it's not glass I guess. No,
there is there is no glass on that on that west facade. I'm just thinking about privacy
to see if I'm on Barton Court.
Okay.
Thank you.
Vice chair, meeting.
I have two questions about this whole height thing.
I don't see anywhere on the backside of it.
Well, first of all, if I'm not mistaken,
if you were to calculate it from the lowest point,
then the front of your building on the east side
would only be 15 feet high.
So I did calculate that.
But what's interesting is that then on the east side,
then from existing gray, which is negative 15 feet,
all the way to the top of the parapet,
that's actually 45 and a half feet.
Sorry.
I actually, there is no, there's like a blue dimension
that's 45, I'm not seeing 30 feet
or maybe it's because when I count from level zero
to level two, that is 30, but then there's an increase
and maybe that's that parapet of that darker building.
I just didn't see 30 anywhere, that's why I was curious.
Do you see like the, I know, I can zoom in right here,
this is why, but you guys can't.
Okay, I mean I don't see 30 anywhere. I see everything is above 30, but I I trust you guys
I guess I think I think you can spot it I might be pointing the wrong direction
There's a 30 from level one to level two is where the third is where that 30 is being for the other
But for the yet, but so you're talking about this this elevation here because there's no there's no dimension to the top
stop, right? So you start at negative 15, 6 inches. And then to basically in my brain,
to be honest with you, I counted 21 plus the 15 minus 2. And I was like, that seems like
it's more than 30 feet. But maybe it's not because I'm just exhausted. But I was like,
I think that's more than 30 feet. The only place that you have the 30 feet is on the
other side, but maybe my math is off. I'm just counting this. You start at
negative when you go to fear. Commissioner, I think what's missing is
is the base elevation. Base, yeah. So what we'll do is add a base elevation line
through all the elevations. Yeah. You can see where this you can see where the zero
Yeah, and I only bring that up because the chair brought up, why are you counting it from the top?
And when I look at it, it's because, frankly, then your glass building would only be 15 feet high,
if we didn't allow that. That was one main point that I noticed.
My name's Austin. I'm the civil engineer on the project. I wanted to say that the base plane
elevation is primarily a visibility calculation and certainly you would take the visibility
calculation from the most prominent corner in the site which would be the signalized
intersection and so the discrepancy in the algebra there is because the existing elevation
there is higher than our finished floor. So when you walk in that door of our future building
the existing elevation is higher than that. That's the leftover dimension that you're
you're not finding.
Well, and then last but not least, though I was reading through your operate business
operation plan, which thank you for including about because there was so much public comment
about test drives and sales. And so I like that you had that. But my question is how
many employees I saw a number there for just one shift. I'm just curious how many employees
generally speaking, will this employ?
It's only a single shift.
It's one shift at a time?
Okay.
Yeah, it's just a single shift.
So it's the 43?
Yeah.
Every day?
Yeah.
Okay.
Any other questions?
All right, thank you very much.
We'll write public comment.
We have several speaker slips.
If you wish to speak,
and you haven't filled out a speaker slip,
please do so now, and we'll get started.
This time, Lana, who had the chance twice in the last
hearing will now be up, followed by Jordan.
Hello, everybody, good evening.
I'm very sleepy, I'm gonna try to put my mind together
so I can speak.
But yeah, my name is Lana, and I'm the immediate neighbor,
24 bargain court, so we will be sharing a wall
with our friends.
And I'm not opposed to the project as long as, you know,
like it takes into consideration the local community,
the immediate neighbors, and the economic health
and the environmental impact.
So a few of my concerns, first, the noise.
It says that, based on what I glanced, the repair shop,
the noise generated from the service shop
will radiate through the open roll-up door.
Why is this door open?
Because the approval was based on the notion
that this is going to be a futuristic state of the art
building.
Enclosed, everything goes inside.
So I don't think anything should be open.
And also it states that the shop hours will be 7 AM to 10 PM.
So I don't know where the discrepancy is coming.
If this is a discrepancy, but I don't
think 7 AM to 10 PM service shops should be a good hours.
And why is the shop in the residential area?
The entrance, it's right where the residents are.
But anyway, so it appears that there will be 48 parking
spaces outside and 72 parking spaces on the open rooftop.
So basically, the building, it's really not as enclosed
as it sounded to be at the beginning.
So that's noise, that's a safety concern from my perspective.
And also, it says that the rooftop lights
will be kept overnight for safety purposes.
So the distance between me and you guys,
this is exactly the distance between me and the building.
So when we bypass the height regulations,
I'm gonna end up with this huge building,
zero morning light, noise,
and,
I mean, yeah, it's good for the city,
but for the immediate neighbors.
And also the wall.
We were thinking it's better, the dividing wall,
to be 10 feet, as opposed to 8 feet,
because that's going to help with the noise.
That's going to help with the safety.
And also cameras.
The concern was the cameras.
If there were cameras on that side,
if all these cameras will capture our houses,
if that's gonna be a privacy issue for us.
And the setback of the building is like, yeah, again,
30 feet is gonna be very close, very tall,
and not as quiet as we thought it would be
because the service shop is right next to us.
So, yeah, and also with the construction.
If you could wrap it up.
Oh, yes.
So we do construction.
One of the most important thing is the pest control,
rodent and cockroach control, because all these buildings
are so junky.
And then when the demo starts, this thing,
we're going to get infested.
So with the pest control, we demand
that to be done like before everything else,
and that we, if possible, to be informed of the situation.
If it's like, if it's a really bad situation,
what do we expect?
Thank you very much.
Yeah.
Jordan?
Good evening.
My name is Jordan Blustein,
resident of Quiet View Court on Second Avenue.
I'm a member of the neighborhood group,
Markey Park Neighbors United.
I use Second Avenue at the building site daily,
And I appreciate the project's landscape and architectural design improves the site visual and environmental quality.
However, I have concerns regarding neighborhood traffic impacts, specifically on Second Avenue, a narrow residential street not suited for commercial activity.
I respectfully request that the planning commission prohibit service and sales test drives on
Second Avenue.
I'm requesting an MUTCD compliant no right turn sign installed at the dealership exit
at Second Avenue.
Additionally, I request implementing a curb design to deter right turns on Second Avenue.
alone is often ignored. These measures align with recommendations from a design review
commission and the city's commitment to neighborhood safety. Thank you for your attention to both
the design and neighborhood impacts of this project and thank you for your time and consideration.
we have Keith, Keith O'Hara, and then Sarah Keller.
Hi, thanks. My name is Keith O'Hara. I have a construction company across the
street on Second Avenue from the site Eco Performance Builders. I also own the
building I bought a few years ago. I'm excited to see something there. It's
been dilapidated for a long time and burglarized about 12 times. I was
Brugge-Wise last Sunday after Super Bowl.
So I do like something new going in.
So there's not crazy buildings and people
living in them and things.
But Second Avenue is pretty crazy.
So I'm one building in from the corner of Second Avenue
North Main.
And it gets backed up there.
It's crazy.
I open my door in my truck when I park in my shop.
And you have to be careful.
It's just an impacted street, a lot of people drive down it.
I don't know why we would exit out of that building at all
on that side, even if you did turn left,
that's right where the traffic jam is.
People go as fast as they can
to get to that stoplight for some reason,
I don't know what the hurry is, but.
And it's just a difficult thing,
you see the signage on Second Avenue like,
hey, this is where you go into the Porsche dealership,
I don't really understand that
because Second Avenue is a mess.
So it's a residential street where a lot of people
use it to commute to get to Buena Vista or wherever they're going. And then cars
on Main Street, like we're surrounded by car dealerships out there, right, which
is great. But they're mainly unloading cars in the median on North Main, and so
is that gonna happen on Second Avenue? Because that will be a disaster. So if
anyone's planning on unloading cars on Second Avenue, I can tell you me and my
neighbor building, which there's only there's only three businesses right there
on Second Avenue plus this one.
And that will be really, really bad.
So I don't know if that's the plan
where cars are going to be unloaded
and see anything in the plans about that.
So, you know, I'm not really sure what's going on there.
And then I didn't get a notice for this hearing.
We found out two days ago,
there was one stamp on a pole right by Massays.
I happened to do my little walk and I saw it.
My neighbor business also didn't get a notice.
I'm literally right across the street.
So, thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening, Commissioners.
My name is Sarah Keller.
I'm a nurse and 23-year resident on Sella Court, the second court that was listed on
the picture behind the west wall of the suggested dealership.
There are serious concerns for residents regarding our physical safety walking past high performance
sports cars onto Second Avenue.
The proposal, thank you, wisely states no right turns, but nothing is exempting an eastbound
return, which is also a problem that was just mentioned, on Second Avenue. So how
can we completely keep this traffic off Second Avenue? People already drive
faster than 50 miles an hour in this 25 mile an hour zone, and I personally have
been aware of three fatalities at that intersection of North
Maine and Second Avenue. Another high concern that I have is privacy. Nearly
all of the West Side residents have families with young children. The idea of
having a 30 to 45 to 145 however you're reading that glass building height with
staff and patrons looking directly into our backyards through a 12-hour day is
disturbing. Why is Porsche placing the building so close to residents who are
only located on the west side instead of North facing with a larger defensible
space? What allowances will the city of Walnut Creek give to residents who are
affected? Can we extend our fences higher than the current six-foot regulations
to protect the privacy of our children and families. Lastly, noise. For the same
reasons of adjacency and objectionable building proximity, why would Porsche
place 22 service bays facing the sole shared residential border, simply for
commercial aesthetics on North Main? Why not design bays away from the
residents? An 8-foot mason wall does not seem equitable for the noise generated
from 22 bays of 500 to 900 horsepower vehicles. It's improbable to assume that
that the 26-foot rolling doors will be down all the time because of air flow and safety.
So we have to think about proposed operating times.
It was differently listed in the packet.
Some were five, six, we heard now, 7, 10 p.m.
Like to ask if this was your backyard and you were trying to host a meal, have children
to rest or go to sleep, what time would you like the noise to stop?
I thank you for your late audience.
Thank you very much.
Barry?
Barry
My name is Barry tires
I'm a 50 year resident of Walnut Creek. I bought some stuff from the pictures back there. I was director of
children's program for 25 years a walnut acres children's Center and
Made the mayor's children attended and they're doing very well in school
The issue here is the social utility of the action of the site versus the social utility of the quiet
Safe use of their homes by all the residents of Second Avenue
No right turn signage is not going to be enough
It has to be a physical barrier because if you look left on Main Street, you're not going that way
It's it's nuts at five o'clock
They have to go right and that's what all of you might do anyway, even though the sign is there
It's it's it's I don't see that barrier physical in the plan yet
When chick fil a open 15?
approximately 15 years ago on Main Street
The the PC you guys and the City Council
Underestimated the problem of traffic congestion and it still is there
Can this also be the problem now? I'm not sure
Matt Francois
City Council member apologize for the chick-fil-a disaster
Anyway, how many how many employees will it be says 46 a shift since the shifts are over eight hours?
Except on Sunday, I know you address that and that's fine
You know if you're gonna keep it that but you're gonna pay overtime then if they're gonna both be working 9 10 hours
Some of those guys, I mean, that's fine. But I'm there might be more traffic congestion
There's only 48 spots for employees only and how will this parking on Second Avenue? I
How will this impact the location of the part of the parking that the other people might have to park at after and finally
read the letters from Jessica Clark she writes very well, it's in the packet and
The access lasting fail to address
is how do you access, when you come out on Second Avenue
and you go left from the dealership,
you're going to have to go left on Main Street again.
But then you're going to have to cross over that median.
And Chick-fil-A, if you all are familiar with that,
it's going to be another boondoggle right at the end,
if you're going to have to enter it on Main Street.
Thank you.
Thank you.
OK, I appreciate it.
and no hamburger selling, okay.
Okay.
And Steve Signorelli?
When's your only text back, by the way?
Sorry, it's so late.
Obviously, it's been a rough night for everyone.
I will try to keep this as quick as I can.
Number one, the light pollution thing.
They're asking for an exemption
to have basically 24-7 lighting.
It's honestly not really acceptable.
I understand they want to secure their inventory, but they can easily put in their night vision
cameras that would provide some of the same utility and just keep the lighting on the
front of the building away from the residence.
There also, I haven't seen any mention of gating on the property to secure everything.
I think that would be also effective besides the lighting.
If you've ever been in that area at night, the Subaru dealership has made the sky purple.
I don't want to see a repeat
with the Porsche dealership, please.
It's honestly, it looks so
alien.
It doesn't look good on the Walnut Creek at all.
I would like to see trees where the roll up doors
are going to be to block any further noise
that's coming from the shop door opening and closing
and when they keep it open likely during summer months
when it's too damn hot.
I haven't heard anything about fire suppression. They are going to have EVs onsite being worked
on with large capacity batteries. There have been numerous studies on the health implications
of EV fires and the vapors that are toxic to not only the people attempting to fight
the fire, but within hundreds of feet of the actual fire. I have seen no revisions to address
fire abatement approach. It needs to be on this review period. And as far as the
sign goes it's absolutely the city's responsibility to get a sign that says
no right turn on to Second Avenue. It's not up for debate. Thank you for your
time. Thank you. I hope it resonated. That was our last speaker slip. I believe, I
believe that that is all the slips that I have okay and I will turn back to the
applicant you have 10 minutes to respond or answer some of the questions that
arose so yeah I'll touch on a few of the concerns that were voiced during
public comment so so right the the shop door on the west side so I will I'll
restate that the West facade does not have any glass on it there's no
Visibility from the interior of the store onto the west side of the site
and then the overhead shop door is a high-speed ride tech so
Yes, the shop is conditioned. So the door will remain closed for the majority of her
Pretty much the entire time except for the few seconds
It will open for a car to come in or leave and then it will drop back down
So that should remain closed for a majority of the day
Vehicle delivery that was mentioned that will not take place on Second Avenue that will take place on our site at the north
East corner where that loading zone is located so that will not take place on either North Main nor Second Avenue. I
Think that's all I had
Yeah, we did photometric studies and they're part of the design package and
The lights are shielded. They're down lighted and there's no lights fill off the property
You won't have a purple sky
of a white sky either. Now, these are shielded downlights and they're on a dimmer.
Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me. It's their time to speak. It's their time to speak. Please.
I wanted to address the possible traffic mitigation, traffic calming solutions for the driveway
on 2nd. We are very limited in what we can do there because that is a fire aerial apparatus
lane, it needs to be 26 feet wide, it can't have crazy bumps in it or crazy slopes or
anything like that, so unfortunately signage is the best we can do there and still meet
the fire code.
I also wanted to note that this building is fully sprinkled, that we're adding fire hydrants,
that there's FDC we're adding, and a post-indicator valve.
Commissioner Klaw.
Can you just clarify the hours of operation, because I've heard a couple of different things?
So I don't know what was the latest.
In particular, the service area.
Yeah.
So service hours will be 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., 5 days a week.
Saturdays from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Showroom hours will be 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., 6 days a week.
And then Sundays from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.
So that implies that the service area would never be operating up to 6?
No, sir.
Okay.
As far as the wall height, given the topography,
I can understand the people into the west of the site
being concerned about privacy.
But the privacy and the noise is attenuated by a large wall.
Is there any plan to treat the wall as far
as any decorative elements or plantings
that will grow over it or anything like that.
I'm thinking, the sound walls along the highways,
they tend to have interesting masonry
and vines growing on them and so forth.
Is there any plan to do anything like that,
to soften that?
Just what's in the landscaping plan currently.
Yeah, we do have planning along that edge.
On the outside?
It's actually between the dealership and the wall.
It's on the east side.
there isn't much space to do much between the wall
and our west property line
because of the existing trees that are there.
So we're wanting to maintain those existing trees.
And so that's the reason we just don't have much room
for any landscaping on the west side of that wall.
The comment about 24 seven lighting.
You say it's down lighting, not polluting the sky.
Is it on 24 seven, the exterior lighting and is it different on the west side than the
rest of the building?
So the lighting on the parking deck will be aimed away from the west property line.
The fixtures on the roof deck and as well as the site lighting poles will be shielded
so there won't be any direct light visible from the west property line.
And then like Steven mentioned earlier, they will be on set on a dimmer just as the Porsche
to sign on the second Avenue sign, so they will dim when the sign does go down.
Okay. And finally, I'm not sure if Porsche has
begun to electric vehicles yet, but the question of battery fires is certainly one, is there
some special suppression, fire suppression? So we have a, let me flip to the page, we
of a battery storage space in the northeast corner of the site that's
attached to our dumpster enclosure. So it is right. So and we are working with
the city to provide the required fire suppression for that battery space. All
right. Thank you. Sorry. Commissioner, real quick. Mr. Moran. Thank you, gentlemen.
There's been some talk about a sign, and I believe you may have mentioned that you'd
be amenable to the concept of a no right turn sign.
I just figured since you guys are standing up there, we have no problem with the no right
turn sign, putting it on the dealership.
It's just as Austin pointed out, we have some limitations as to what we can do topographically
at that entry.
Okay, thank you.
So that's your response to the request for the curb that they were talking about?
Yeah, the porch shop.
That can't be done because of?
We have to have fire access there.
That's where the apparatus come in.
Okay.
Any other questions?
If not, thank you very much.
And we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission.
Thoughts?
Comments?
Questions?
I'll start out.
I think it's a very good project.
It's a very much need something needed to happen with that site
And it's not a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through, which is a good point right there
I would encourage to have in the no right turn sign on that entrance
And it's yeah, no right turn so that
It discourages people going down 2nd Avenue
But they fully support the project
I live, actually, at the far end of Second Avenue on Pona Vista, so I'm very familiar
with that road.
If I were testing out a new car, I would not choose that road to drive down.
It might be useful to perhaps come up with something if people are driving out on their
own, they can see the no ride turn sign, but there might be something, just a little thing
you can put in the car that says, you know, please avoid Second Street because
there's no reason they need to be on it and it's probably not used for them or
nor us nor the people around there that might be helpful. Commissioner Count. So
also just to clarify for the public, we're not the final decision makers here.
We're making recommendations to the City Council, correct? That's correct. Okay. I
I mean, the way I'm seeing it, if I'm reading this correctly and everything that you just
presented, this project is consistent with the general plan land use and zoning, notwithstanding
those two minor items which was the height, which sorry I didn't get that for a second,
And how you calculate the FAR, net versus gross.
So I did want to just, again, we're not the decision makers, but when I'm looking at this,
I'm looking for consistency with what exactly was already part of the general plan designation
and any applicable policy and zoning designation.
I'm not entirely sure I understand the rationale for using the high point, except that it is
the most visible spot on the property.
But the way the building is set there, the height at that point is at 30 feet.
I'm not counting the mechanical on top.
And the height at the back end is well below 30 feet against the base elevation, but also
not very high against the actual ground underneath it.
So I can accept those heights, even without entirely understanding the rationale.
I do have some concerns about the people immediately to the west because the size of the facility
is significant.
A lot of employees are doing a lot of work there during the day.
I'm glad to hear that it shuts down by six.
People are going to enjoy their dinner and go to sleep.
I'm not sure what further one could do.
One could raise the wall a little higher, that would help a bit with the noise.
But then it would be an even more imposing wall facing the residential area.
So I'm not sure that's really a good solution.
I think anything that could be done to make that wall less monolithic, as viewed from
the outside from the west, would be much appreciated by the people there.
Thank you. I'll just briefly thank everyone for coming and staying this late and staying
awake this late. When I look at this project, I think of a site that's unfortunately quite
underutilized and really an eyesore right now, and an opportunity to improve it, keep
an important business here in Walnut Creek. It seems like a good thing for us to do. And
So I think the planners and the team have done a good job
listening to the neighbors, trying to address the concerns
and building a nice looking dealership.
And so I do support it.
You should count.
So I think this is one of those examples
of where Measure A makes things rather challenging
for our city to allow businesses
as things move forward into the future
and the way that things change.
There's certain types of businesses
that can't be in our city because of Measure A,
and I think the creativity of building on a hill
has happened a few times already
to try to incorporate businesses,
for businesses like this to be able to stay in our city.
So I think it just creates some,
it's one of those unintended consequences
of a citizens initiative is that as things change,
the council cannot change.
The only way to change something like that in ADAPT
is for the citizens to make a change.
So there are some creative uses
that have been happening, it appears.
And it creates some bizarre incentives, right?
To build on a hill if you need something
slightly taller but here we are. I would suggest just in terms of the right turn
lane or the no right turn sorry it's getting late in terms of the no right
turn I would like to suggest that we edit the resolution so on page 8 of
of attachment to for the draft resolution to just in the third paragraph to just cross
out vehicles test drives from so that it would say additionally a condition of approval has
been incorporated to restrict turning right. So you take out restrictive vehicle test drives
from? Does that make sense? So I'd like to recommend that as an amendment.
All right. Would you like to make a... Well, actually, we need two motions. We have two
resolutions. The first is on CEQA. And then perhaps you'd like to make the second one,
which would include your amendment. And I note that if we go past 11, we are,
according to the municipal code, required to complete this.
So let's do that.
I have a motion on the CEQA resolution.
OK, so the CEQA resolution, I move
that we adopt the resolution recommending
the findings and determination that the proposed Porsche
dealership project is exempt from CEQA pursuant
to the Class 32 infill development exemption Porsche
dealership PD ordinance rezone.
Second.
further discussion not call a roll. Commissioner Kwok. Yes. Commissioner
Strongman. Yes. Commissioner Moran. Yes. Commissioner Cown. Yes. Commissioner Klopp.
Yes. Vice Chair Knighting. Yes. Chair Anderson. Yes. Motion carries. Thank you very much. And we have a motion on the
We have the second resolution.
All right, so I move to approve the recommendation
to City Council for PD ordinance, design review,
tree permits and sign ordinance exception,
application number Y25-058, with the amendment to it
on page 8 to cross out the words vehicle test drives
from the third paragraph. And Chair if I may just to add to that we actually, I looked at the
resolution there's a condition about test drive so that condition that's under planning number three.
So that would also be modified given your amendment if that's the motion. Yes, thank you.
Very good.
Second.
Hold on.
Any comment?
Take the roll.
OK.
Commissioner Count?
Yes.
Commissioner Strongman?
Yes.
Commissioner Moran?
Yes.
Commissioner Klock?
Yes.
Commissioner Klock?
Yes.
Vice Chair Knighting?
Yes.
Chair Anderson?
Yes.
Motion carries.
Thank you all very much for your patience.
This is one of the longest meetings we've had in a few years.
thank you very much are there any Commission considerations no or
mission member and staff reports or announcements not at this time this late
tape in that case we are adjourned 1058 well done no need to make a no need to
extend the meeting yeah so you're claiming that's a minute three minutes
fast.