I'm Kevin Wilk, Mayor of the City of Walnut Creek, and welcome to the regular meeting
of the Walnut Creek City Council.
The City Council was conducting this meeting from the City Council chamber.
This meeting is being video streamed and can be viewed live or later on the City's website.
As some attendees may be participating in their first Walnut Creek City Council meeting,
I wanted to welcome everyone and talk briefly about the public comment process.
For each agenda item, there will be an opportunity for public comment on the item.
Thus, if you desire to speak to an item on the agenda this evening, please hold your
comments until the City Council considers that item.
Additionally, we have a section on the agenda titled Public Communications, which is for
public comments for items not on the agenda.
Any comments during public communication should not relate to an item that is on the agenda
this evening.
with section 9.5 of the City Council Handbook, 30 minutes will be initially
allocated for public communications for items not on the agenda. Additional time
for public communications for items not on the agenda will be provided at the
end of the open session portion of the meeting if necessary. If you desire to
provide a public comment please complete a speaker identification card and line
up behind the lectern at the appropriate time. Wait your turn and then when you
approach the lectern please state your name and city of residence for the
record. You will have two minutes to address the City Council. Please keep in
mind that this is a city business meeting. The City Council has adopted
rules of decorum to ensure that meetings are conducted efficiently and
effectively and that all members of the public have a full, fair and equal
opportunity to be heard. The City Council handbook outlines decorum expected in
council chamber and can be found on our website. All remarks should be addressed to the city council.
Please do not use threatening, profane, or abusive language which disrupts, disturbs,
or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the council meeting. Again, each speaker will have
two minutes to make your remarks. Written comments submitted and received up to two hours before the
meeting have been posted to the city's website for public review and are included in the meeting
record but will not be separately read into the record.
Well, good evening to this full House.
I'm Kevin Wilk, Mayor of the City of Walnut Creek, and welcome to the Tuesday, April 7th,
2026 regular meeting of the Walnut Creek City Council.
And if you'd all please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under
God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Thank you.
And City Clerk Susie Martinez, would you please call the roll?
Councilmember Darling?
Here.
Councilmember Domeni?
Here.
Councilmember Silva?
Here.
Mayor Pro Tem Francois?
Here.
And Mayor Wilk?
Here.
All right.
Our first agenda item is a proclamation for Joan LeCasey Gardens at the Heather Farms
and I invite Joan LeCasey to please come forward to accept the proclamation.
So Joan LeCasey first connected with the garden at Heather Farms as a young mother, regularly
visiting the picnic, explore, and learn about the plants and flowers with her children.
Later, she returned as a volunteer to support garden maintenance and propagation, eventually
joining the board of directors and working her way into the interim co-executive director
position.
Joan has served as the executive director at the Gardens at Heather Farms since 2014.
And through her leadership, she's guided the Gardens at Heather Farms through a transformative
era of growth and stability, strengthened its financial foundation through grant writing
and major donor cultivation and expanded programs and facilities that significantly enhanced
the garden's reach and impact.
And whereas she has led and supported numerous capital and programmatic improvements including
new greenhouses, 82 community garden beds, a compost station, a tool shed, a children's
garden and little library, an 8,000 square foot climate discovery garden with modern
irrigation and low water plantings, upgrades to irrigation and facilities, restoration
projects including the waterfall and trellises, commercial kitchen improvements and expanded
children's science and education programs, I need a breath after all of those, in partnership
with local agencies and school districts. Her guiding values of honesty, equity, determination,
gratitude, patience and humor have shaped her leadership and service reflecting a long-standing
commitment to non-profit work and community engagement. And after more than a decade of
of dedicated service.
She now concludes her tenure with appreciation
for the staff, volunteers, and community members,
and a sense of gratitude for the daily privilege
of working in a space that she deeply loves.
And therefore, I, Kevin Wilk,
mayor of the city of Walnut Creek,
on behalf of the Walnut Creek City Council,
do hereby recognize Joan Lucasi
for her extraordinary leadership lasting contributions
and dedicated service to the gardens at Heather Farms
and greater Walnut Creek community.
And we extend our heartfelt gratitude and best wishes
your retirement and future endeavors. Thank you Mayor Welk and City Council. Thank you so much for
such a special recognition. I really appreciate it and I want to take the opportunity to thank
the Gardens Board of Directors who are with me here tonight. Just a wonderful group of community
volunteers who donate their time and their professional skills and enthusiasm for the
the Garden's mission and that gave me a really solid foundation to do my work
and I'll be eternally grateful to them. I'm excited to introduce you to the
Garden's new executive director Jeremy Peck. Jeremy has been the garden manager
for over 10 years so he knows the physical space, he understands the
Garden's mission and he understands our culture. He's beloved by our staff and
by our members and donors and stakeholders,
so it's really made this transition seamless.
He's here on his second day of work.
And I'm really excited to see
where he takes the organization.
So thank you.
Terrific, thank you.
So Jeremy, future councils will see you up here
in about a couple of decades.
Well, let's take a photo.
The next, our next item is another proclamation
for Clean Contra Costa Month.
And I invite Stacy Martin Bonaducci.
Did I pronounce that right?
Bon adieu.
Program and grant manager with Sustainable Contra Costa
and come forward to accept the proclamation.
So the proclamations, whereas the health
of our environment, economy, and community
is essential for current and future generations,
and the city of Walnut Creek has a long commitment
to environmental sustainability, including
adopting a sustainability action plan with ambitious goals
for the community and city operation and a climate emergency
resolution, emphasizing the need for urgent action
to address climate change.
Earth Day has been celebrated in April since 1970.
Sustainable Walnut Creek organizes an annual Walnut
Creek Earth Day celebration.
And the city of Walnut Creek supports the collaborative
effort bringing awareness and local action
of the pivotal issues facing our planet
because when we reduce our impact by conserving resources
and investing in local solutions, everybody benefits.
and therefore I, Kevin Wilk,
mayor of the city of Walnut Creek,
on behalf of the Walnut Creek City Council,
do hereby proclaim April, 2026,
as Cleaner Contra Costa Month,
to bring the community together in action
for a healthy, clean, and sustainable region,
and encourage residents to find resources
and join the challenge at CleanerContracosta.org.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mayor Wilk and Council.
On behalf of the city staff and our partners
at Sustainable Contra Costa,
We are honored to accept this proclamation.
This month, Earth Month,
isn't just about a title on a calendar.
It's an open invitation to every resident in Walnut Creek.
We know that climate action can sometimes feel
like a massive overwhelming concept,
but the Cleaner Contra Costa Challenge
turns that big idea into what we call everyday wins.
Whether you are a busy parent looking for a quick habit shift
or a homeowner planning on a major upgrade.
This free online platform is your one-stop shop
to access to cost-saving resources,
lowering your utility bills,
which I'm sure everyone will love to do,
and track your household's impact in real time.
We are especially excited to announce
that this week marks the launch of the WaterWise Challenge.
Right now, we are in friendly competition
with our neighbors.
And every time you log a water-saving action,
like fixing that leaky faucet
or switching to a smart irrigation controller,
you earn points for Walnut Creek.
To date, over 949 Walnut Creek households
have already saved nearly $85,000
and kept 180 tons of CO2 emissions out of our atmosphere.
Let's double those numbers this year.
It takes less than two minutes to sign up.
You can simply go to CleanerContracosta.org,
join a team or start your own.
And when you do this, we save resources
that our entire community thrives.
So let's show the rest of the county
what Walnut Creek can do.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Picture time.
Right, because two proclamations is never enough.
we have a third. National Public Safety telecommunications week and invite
dispatcher Zachary. Oh my gosh, I should have looked at your last, what's your
last name? Recal May, forward to accept the proclamation. So whereas emergencies
can occur at any time that require police, fire, or emergency medical
services and when an emergency occurs the prompt response of police officers,
firefighters, and paramedics is critical to the protection of life and
preservation of property. The safety of our police officers and firefighters is
dependent upon the quality of accuracy and information obtained from citizens
who telephone the Walnut Creek Emergency Communication Center. And whereas public
safety telecommunications are the first and most critical contact our citizens
have with emergency services, public safety telecommunicators are the single
vital link for our police officers and firefighters by monitoring their
activities by radio, providing them with information, and ensuring their safety.
And each dispatcher has exhibited compassion, understanding, and professionalism during
the performance of their job in the past year, and therefore, I, Kevin Wilk, Mayor of the
City of Walnut Creek, on behalf of the Walnut Creek City Council, to hereby declare the
week of April 12th through 18th, 2026, as National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week,
in honor of the men and women whose diligence and professionalism keeps our city and citizens
safe. Thank you. Thank you mayor, thank you city council. I just like to it's an
honor to accept this proclamation on behalf of all my colleagues and our
team. You know I thank them for their commitment to excellence, their
sacrifice, and their resilience and we look forward to continuing to commit to
the city of Walnut Creek. Thank you. Thank you and as we know speed and
efficiency is paramount to safety and so appreciate all that you and your
colleagues. My brevity is also I have to get to work too. I mean at work but
Okay. Both are good. If you receive the calls, I can't receive them all. Okay, now we have a
presentation from Marin Clean Energy or MCE and I invite Chiara Donato, Bilingual
Community Development Manager forward to present. And I should mention that Cindy
Darling, Council Member Cindy Darling, is our liaison to MCE. And Council Member
Dafini is my alternate and he got to go this month and so he got his first full
exposure to MCE and it was it was fun. He tells me. Wonderful well thank you so
much good evening and thank you Mary Wilk, members of the City Council and
staff for the opportunity to speak with you today. As mentioned my name is Chiara
Donato, I'm Bilingual Community Development Manager at MCE. I have been there now
for three years and my role really is to serve as a liaison to staff and public
officials in Contra Costa County. I'm glad to be here tonight to share some
updates about MCE and our engagement efforts in Walnut Creek and discuss potential partnership
opportunities to help Walnut Creek meet their goals to reduce energy related greenhouse gas
emissions and just as a quick refresher MCE is a community choice aggregation program
so what that means is that we enable cities and counties to purchase clean renewable electricity
on behalf of their residents businesses and municipal facilities. The city of Walnut Creek
is a member of MCU's joint powers authority and we've been providing electric generation
services and customer programs to the community since 2016. Thank you. So I'd like to start
with a little brief introduction on what community choice in California is. So MCU's California's
first community choice aggregation provider. We are a not-for-profit public electricity
provider, and we've been serving customers in Contra Costa County since
2013. Since our launch in 2010, CCAs or community choice aggregation programs
have grown across the state with 25 agencies now serving over 15 million
electric customers as you can see on the map here of the state. To better
illustrate how MC works, we have a visual here. So on the far right you see MC, we
buy and build clean and renewable energy for you. So that could be solar, wind, or
other kind of renewable products. PG&E continues to deliver that service so on
their lines and poles. MCU just replaces the electric generation portion,
offering an alternative choice and access to more renewable energy. And then
the benefit is the customer. So you at your home are using more cleaner air,
renewable energy, have more stable rates, choice, and local control. So as I
mentioned, we're a not-for-profit agency. That means MC is not funded by tax
dollars but directly by the revenues from ratepayers. Our structure as a joint
powers authority creates local oversight and transparency through public board
meetings. We are directly governed by elected officials from each of the 38
member jurisdictions that we serve. Each city, town, or county that MC serves
appoints an elected official to represent their community, and our board
meets monthly out of public meetings to determine policy, rate, programs, and other
administration decisions for MC. And a thank you to Councilmember Cindy Darling
for your climate leadership and for serving on our Board of Directors. Here
you can take a look at MC's growth. So MC launched in Marin County originally in
2008 with a vision to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
By 2010, we began serving our first customers,
setting the foundation for growth.
Today, we are proud to serve those 38 diverse member
communities throughout the Bay Area,
reflecting on our commitment to expanding our reach
and encouraging widespread adoption of renewable energy.
You can see when Mauna Creek joined in 2016 highlighted
there.
Over the next couple of slides, we
will talk about your energy options and choices.
So choices power.
With Emsi, you have a choice.
Previous to that, there was only one choice.
Today, folks can choose to get their generation or electricity
from PD&E or choose Emsi's options.
Emsi offers two main service options as an alternative.
We have our deep green or premium service,
which is made up of 100% renewable,
so that wind and solar we were talking about.
And then we have our default service,
which is the light green option made out of 60% renewable.
Both of these services offer a much higher percentage
of renewable energy compared to PG&E's 23% product.
And quickly, I wanted to review understanding MCU rates.
So a few points to understand about MCU rates
is that MCU rates are only for generation.
So that's where your energy comes from.
We set our rates for electricity generation typically
about once a year.
And all of those rates are reviewed publicly
by MC's board of directors and improved in a voting meeting.
MC's board of directors recently approved
a 14 rate reduction to effective April 1st.
And I also want to spend some time
talking about discount programs.
As we all mentioned, utility bills are really high right now
and it is something that is top of mind for us.
We know energy costs have been historically high
and a benefit of MC's model is that we help ensure
locally controlled rates.
In addition to the local rate setting,
All MC customers are eligible for a number of statewide bill saving programs.
Those include income qualified households can receive deep discounts on the energy bills
from programs such as the care or California rates for energy program.
There's also the FARA or family electric rate assistance program and medical baseline.
And in addition to all of the statewide programs, MC's board also recently approved an additional
$10 million in funding for the MC care credit.
So this is a separate program on top of the care and FARA that's a bill relief for income
qualified households and small businesses that became affected on April 1st.
This slide is an example of residential cost comparison based on the average residential
usage in our service area.
So you will see the three options that we discussed earlier, each with their breakdown.
Where you see the biggest difference is on the PG&E fees line.
This is a charge known as the power charge and difference adjustment or the PCIA for
short.
What this is is an exit fee from PG&E who entered into energy contracts assuming they
would be purchasing power for your community.
All right, so now I want to talk more about MCE and the City of Walnut Creek's community
engagement efforts and how customers have benefited from MCE programs.
Again, our agency focuses on reinvesting in the community through the customer programs
to help lower bills and increase access to clean energy for everyone.
For Wanak Creek, what that looks like is that 90% of customers in the city are enrolled
with MCE, 7% are actually enrolled in our deep green premium service, and 11% use the
solar programs that we have, 8% are enrolled in the care discount, and 4% are on medical
baseline.
On the customer program side, that means that over $386,000 have been provided in direct
customer rebates for the purchase of electric vehicles.
112 electric vehicle charging stations have been installed throughout the city on a rebate
program, with over $230,000 in rebates distributed through that program.
And over $1.7 million have been distributed in energy efficiency programs.
So this is for upgrades to homes and businesses
to help them save money.
We're also investing in the Wanok Creek community
through sponsorship of local nonprofits
and community-based organizations
like Sustainable Wanok Creek, Sustainable Contra Costa,
Sustainable Rossmore, the Wanok Creek Chamber,
Meals on Wheels, the upcoming Earth Day celebrations
this month, and Save Mount Diablo, just to name a few.
We also not part of the city's sustainability goals
is to have more energy efficiency buildings.
Through MCE's energy management programs,
we've worked with city staff
to help improve municipal buildings
resulting in reduced energy consumption
and increasing savings.
The city also has deep green champions
like the Ruth Bancroft Garden and Nursery
who are local businesses, nonprofits, and public agencies
that have made a public commitment
to using the 100% renewable energy.
Municipal accounts also opted up to our deep green program since 2018.
This month, we are actually recognizing Habitat for Humanity of East Bay Silicon
Valley for the McGlashan Advocacy Award at an upcoming Board of Directors
meeting. This is for their environmental leadership and impact on the Esperanza
Place in Walnut Creek. This is a model project of zero net energy developments,
and it looks like they're actually producing more energy than it consumes.
We're also partnering with Sustainable Contract Costa
and investing over $5,000 to support local sustainability
campaigns and their Sustainable Leaders in Action, which
is their youth leader program.
So as mentioned, the programs earlier
are our main focus in reinvesting
into our member communities through the various customer
programs.
Some of them are highlighted here.
We have our workplace and multifamily charging program,
which is in up to $4,500 rebates per charging
installation, we also have our energy efficiency and demand response programs available for
small businesses, commercial and industrial, and the energy management programs that we
talked about earlier.
So with that, I'll close here by saying that MC is the first and longest operating CCA
in California.
We were built by energy customers for energy customers, and we have set the standard for
many of other CCAs in operation today.
We value environmental responsibility
and care for our customers through community model.
And since 2010, we've eliminated over 500,000 metric tons
of carbon emissions,
reinvested over $358 million in MC communities,
and supported over 2.9 million labor hours
to buy and build cleaner energy to serve our communities.
With that, I'd love to open it up for questions.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Does anybody in the council have any questions?
Hi.
So if somebody wanted to talk to MCE about accessing some
of their programs, do you have their number
for their customer service center?
I can pull that up.
On this slide, I do have the email.
But happy to share.
Email is always a good one way to start the discussion.
And they actually have a really great staff
who can walk you through why your bill might be high,
what you can do to reduce it, what opportunities you have.
And if you need to access something
like the medical baseline or the CARES credit,
they are more than happy to work with you on that.
And it's a great resource.
I figure we have a big audience today,
so I'm just taking advantage of you,
since you're here to spread a little gospel.
But it's a great program,
and I appreciate the staff coming tonight
to give everybody an update.
And we were proud to be able to reduce the fee,
the charges this year and we are hoping that in the next year we have heard that PG&E is
going to be raising their rates and so we will continue to try to beat their rates as
much as we can.
Thank you and I did add some flyers in the back that definitely have our phone number
in there as well.
Yes ma'am.
Thank you for being here tonight and great presentation, it answered I think every question.
I had one though, in terms of the, just big picture, is the idea that CCAs will replace
PG&E in Southern California Edison and the other utilities in terms of being the energy
provider because they won't be able to meet the renewable portfolios that the state's
going to require going forward, what's that future look like?
That's a good question.
We always like to say that we are partners with PG&E, right, because they're definitely
are still there for the infrastructure.
And I would say it's not to replace them, right.
We have different missions.
Ours is to have more renewable energy for our community.
It's also based more locally.
As you know, PG&E or Edison has a much larger area, so our programs are, that's why they're
more hyper focused on the community.
As you know, prices are really high right now and there's a lot on the energy markets
I think coming into the future, right?
We don't have maybe enough energy for all the folks here, so we definitely don't talk
about the idea of replacing PG&E, but working together to make sure to serve all of our
customers and have the energy for, you know, as the future moves on to more technology.
We have a virtual power plant, which is the idea that all of smart technology will then
and be connected, right, be able to switch on and off
to help us on hot days to reduce energy consumption.
So we definitely need everyone's support.
I hope that answers that part of your question.
It does, and that makes sense.
And then in terms of solar installations,
is a homeowner still able to partner with MCE
in terms of getting rebates for that
and putting that energy back into the grid?
Yeah, definitely.
So always a good clarifying question
because when I am out in the community,
folks are like, do you do solar installations?
So we're the energy provider, similar to PG&E.
After you do get solar installations,
we have similar programs for those who have solar,
so you get a certain, you know,
cent per kilowatt back into your pockets.
So yeah, we have those programs,
and then part of that program I mentioned earlier
about the virtual power plant,
there's opportunities to if you have a battery
with storage for your solar,
and then you wanna sign up to have it switch off
at a certain amount of time
or certain amount of energy consumption
and helps put that back on a grid.
There's an incentive for that as well.
Terrific, thank you.
Kara, thank you, appreciate the presentation.
You've mentioned you have flyers in the back
and if you're not gonna stay here
through the whole meeting when people are leaving,
you can certainly put them on the back area
and people can pick them up.
Wonderful, thank you so much.
Thank you.
All right.
Next on the agenda is the consent calendar.
And does any council member wish to pull any item for discussion?
Well, that may be a first of my tenure.
2C. 2C. Oh, it's not a first.
Okay. Does any member of staff wish to pull an item for discussion?
Does any member of the public wish to comment on an item on the consent calendar?
As a reminder, each speaker will have two minutes to make their remarks.
written comments have been posted to the city's website for public review and are
included in the meeting record but will not be will not be separately read into
the record so if any speakers would like to speak on an item on the consent
calendar only this is your time to come up okay seeing no speakers I'll ask if
I'll move to approve to a B D and E we have a motion in a second we'll we'll
throw that one to Mayor Pro Tem Francois. Suzy could you call the roll please.
Councilmember Darling. Aye. Mayor Pro Tem Francois. Aye. Councilmember Davini. Aye. Councilmember Silva. Aye. Mayor Welk. Aye.
All right councilmember Davini if you'd like to bring up your item. Yeah it's
it's more of an just an information piece for the public this this is in
regards to the Contra Costa clean water program and it's something that we've
we've put into effect to manage mostly stormwater, but emissions from stormwater and other eliminations
into our water system. It comes from the Clean Water Act. It's a federal piece of legislation.
It's an unfunded mandate, so the requirements for treating water and for treating stormwater
are becoming increasingly strict and so they're requiring increased investment and increased
money from the city in order to perform these cleanup and monitoring systems.
So it's something to be aware of that as we continue to fund this, that there may be a
time where we need to look at an alternate way of funding stormwater cleanup.
And right now it's being paid for primarily through development fees and with overflow
into our general fund, but there may come a time in the future where we have to look
at other ways to try to pay for this ongoing cost.
That's all.
And with that, I move to adopt the resolution authorizing the city manager to execute the
amended and restated Contra Costa Clean Water Program Agreement as stated on the consent
calendar to see I'll second we have a motion in a second Susie could call the
role please the next item on the agenda is public communications this portion of
the meeting is reserved for comment on items not on the agenda under the Brown
Act the council cannot act on items during raised during public
communications but may respond briefly the statements made or questions posed
Request clarification or refer the item to staff.
Consistent with section 9.5 of the City Council Handbook,
30 minutes will be allocated at this time
for public communications for items not on the agenda,
meaning not on the public hearings.
Additional time for public communications
for items not on the agenda will be provided
at the end of the meeting if necessary.
Written comments submitted have been posted
to the city's website for public review
and are included in the meeting record
but will not be separately read into the record.
At this time I'll note that the time is 6.35
and we will take public comments and items
not on the agenda until approximately 7.05
and then the remainder of any such comments
at the end of the open session portion of the meeting.
And come on down.
Good evening, Jan Warren, I live in the Woodlands
and just wanted to talk about a couple of bills.
You were just talking about Power and Senator Becker
has a Bill SB 913 I just heard him present on today.
And, you know, we have a lot of power stored
in all kinds of gadgets.
And it's just a matter of trying to be more efficient
in terms of how those are used
and how you're allowed to do different things.
So he is working on that.
The other bill that I really came to talk to you about
has to do with housing and affordable housing
And SB 1117, Sir Vontes spoke about the ADUs and JADUs
and how they've grown in the state of California.
And it reminded me of our impact fees
and the difficulties in having enough money to pay
for all sorts of things that the city needs
to keep running and yet keep down the price of housing.
And so this particular bill is working to,
if you want to put in an ADU for 750 square feet,
you want to bill that, put it in your backyard,
they're wanting to say, okay, the first 750 square feet,
we will not attach any impact fees to it.
Above it, let's say you put in 1,500 square feet,
then they'll subtract and you will pay impact fees
750 square feet so they're trying to make it a win-win so the cities get some
money and yet people actually continue to build and it made me curious about
what we're doing in our city in terms of I know we've also put in a lot of ADUs
and permitted them here and I don't know how many of those are actually being
rented out and how many are just going to family members but it's always an
interesting topic thank you. Thank you Jan. Any other public comments?
Come on up, you're next. Hi, good evening Mayor Wolk and members of the city
council. My name is Kitty Cole, I'm a Walnut Creek resident. I actually know
many of you from various things. You knocked on my door, Craig, when you were
running for city council so I remember you vividly. I'm here to talk about the
Master Gardener Program of Contra Costa County. A lot of people know about it but
what we've really learned is not everybody knows about it and we want to
talk about it two things. My colleague is sitting with me, she's going to come up
right behind me. Since 1983, this is our mission statement by the way, since 1983
our program has provided trusted science-based information to help people
grow healthier gardens in more sustainable communities. We offer
practical guidance in many locations on topics such as vegetable gardening,
soils, pests, roses, that's my topic, and
wildfire defense. We also support 49
school gardens in the county, helping
young people develop a curiosity about
gardening, and in particular growing food.
And that's at all levels of education,
elementary, middle school, and high school.
There is a half-acre parcel of land that
I don't think everybody knows that you
actually own, the city owns, and we garden,
and it's called our garden. It's at
Shadelands and North Wicket Lane in case everybody doesn't know. It's owned by
the city. It was built and maintained by us and our volunteers. There's 275 of us.
It's open to the public and it literally serves as a living classroom where
people take courses and it's every Wednesday at 10 and Dorothy is going to
talk about that. Last, I want to tell you that we have our big what we called our
great tomato plant sale this weekend. It's on the 11th and 12th two days and
and the following two Wednesdays.
And it is a giant thing where we sell 30,000 plants,
by the way, in four days.
If you haven't come, you should come.
It's really amazing.
We have more than 70 varieties of tomatoes,
along with many other vegetables and herbs,
and everything is $4, and we start everything from seed.
So they're really spectacular.
You can't get 70 varieties anywhere.
Is that it?
Oh, can I say one line?
Is that okay?
Quick line.
Okay, one line.
It's a well-loved tradition.
And every year, we give 12,000 to 14,000 pounds of food
from this garden to the Monument Crisis Center in Concord.
So there I am.
I'm going to put flyers at the back, too,
because I heard the other person could.
OK.
Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is Dorothea Beta, Pleasant Hill.
But I spend most of my volunteer hours
at our garden in Shadelands here in beautiful Walnut Creek.
I want to tell you a little bit about the services
that we offer at our garden.
One, it is open every Wednesday from 9 to noon
for you, the public, to come visit us,
see the wonderful things we're doing,
and you can bring your plant questions with you
and talk to the master gardeners there.
During the growing season,
which starts this year, April 15th,
runs through October 29th,
we also have fabulous master gardeners
that will be giving you advice
in hands-on workshop demonstrations.
We have 29 weeks, 29 different topics.
These workshops are free to the public.
They are at 10 o'clock, they run about 90 minutes long,
and please come visit us.
The other thing that happens during the season
is that at each of these events,
we have an Ask a Master Gardener table.
This is where you get to ask your personal questions.
Bring in a sick plant.
Bring in photos of a tree
that you don't know anything, trees are my thing.
We are there for you.
We are, the Ask a Master Gardener tables
are all across the county at all the farmer's markets,
at special events like the Wynn Festival,
Martina's Beaver Festival,
You can access this resource and it is free to you. We only give scientifically
vetted
UC approved information
Lastly if you can't make it in person
We have an email address where you can send photos and questions to our fabulous
Master Gardeners
Thank you so much. Thank you Dorothy
Hold on we we have a question just a minute Dorothy come back
Can you for those who not on here to grab a flyer can you provide the email address and your for your website
No, I can't and I caught because I never email us
But you can just google, you know that that word
you see Master Gardeners of Contra Costa County or Contra Costa County Master Gardener program
and we will come up our schedule of 29
Talks are posted on our website
April 29th, I'm going to show you how to plant a tree the proper way
And you said 10 a.m. What day of the week?
Every Wednesday all throughout the year were open from 9 to noon
The talks are at 10, but 9 to noon the ask a master gardener table is there our fabulous
Master gardener volunteers are there and
You will get the best treatment you've ever had for your garden questions better than anywhere else
And you can sign up for the email because I get them on the regular and a lot of this information comes in
Email we we will give you the email because I took some really sad tomatoes
to the Master Gardener table one time.
And they told me why they were sad and what to do.
I'm also a plant pathologist, by the way.
So disease questions?
Yes.
Yes.
So anyway, I've been getting it.
And it is great information.
I always really appreciate it.
Thank you.
And my tomatoes are still sad, but it's fun.
We have answers.
I have a phone number for you.
Would you like me to read it out quickly?
And I also have the email address.
It's at the very bottom of the flyer, and it's probably 0.6.
So it's hard to see this.
But anyway, I think it says 9-2-5-6-0-8-6-6-8-3
and the email is C-C-M-G.
So Contra Costa, Master Gardener, C-C-M-G
at U-C-A-N-R dot E-D-U.
Should I say it twice or are we good?
One more time. One more time.
Phone number 9-2-5-6-0-8-6-6-8-3.
the email is CCM, as in Mary, G, at UCANR.edu.
Thank you so much.
Thank you so much.
Nobody in Walnut Creek has a reason
not to have excellent gardens now.
Yes.
Do we have any more public comments for tonight?
We have one more card for public comment?
Okay, so seeing no more public comments,
we'll close the public comment portion of our meeting
and move on to the next item.
Which is council member and staff announcements,
reports on activities or requests.
So let me first ask our city attorney,
do you have to report any closed session actions?
There are no reportable actions
from this evening's closed session.
And city manager, any reports?
Yeah, good evening.
One update for your council and for the public.
You'll recall that your council
authorized an outdoor dining incentive program
and allocated $100,000 for incentives for businesses,
for restaurants downtown to build outdoor dining.
Restaurants could receive a grant of up to $10,000.
Pleased to share an update that so far,
seven outdoor dining pods, as we are referring to them,
have been built.
The program was set to expire March 31st,
but we had the option for a final extension to June 30th
that did go into effect.
So if there are any restaurateurs out there,
that are thinking about pursuing the outdoor dining program,
the time is now to get the application in
and get that built before the end of June
to make the most of that incentive program that's available.
Thank you, and there's up to three more
that we have grant for, is that right?
That's correct.
Okay, final three.
Let's start then with Council Member Davini
for any announcements and activities on AB 1234.
All right, well good evening.
It's been a busy past few weeks.
I attended the MCE board meeting that we just learned about in Cindy Darling's councilmember
Darling's absence.
And while I was there, we discussed AB 1761, which is a piece of legislation that's being
put forth to help deal with these PCIA charges.
So those, again, as a reminder, are the charges that PG&E is charging consumer choice aggregates
like MCE for leaving PG&E and getting their power from MCE,
and one of the issues has been that it's felt
like those fees have been fairly high
and that there hasn't been a lot of transparency
as to how the fees are being generated.
So what 1761 would do is it would create transparency
by for the PCA charges.
It would make PG&E disclose the data they're using
for their calculations and how they're coming up with them,
and it would allow policymakers to audit those charges.
MCE did give money to offset the rates
that are going up or went up because of the PG&E charges.
And fortunately, MCE put away a rainy day fund
called their Operating Reserve Fund.
And they transferred money from that
to help with rate stabilization.
That helps with low income customers
and also helps reduce the impact of PG&E charges
on the MCE customers.
So that's it from the MCE board meeting.
I was enjoyed attending the Taste and Toast events
that went on March 25th at the Broadway Plaza.
That was a WCEF or Walnut Creek Education Foundation
fundraiser in partnership with
the Walnut Creek Downtown Association.
It was food, wine, live music.
They had a stage with performances from WCI
and Tice Creek students.
Money goes towards supporting the arts, music,
library and science programs in Walnut Creek schools.
And the county side, I want to acknowledge
the retirement of our fire chief, Louis Brochard.
Chief Brochard had over 30 years of service
in the fire department, 18 years
at the Contra Costa Fire Prediction District
in seven years as the fire chief.
There was a retirement ceremony with bagpipes
and formal presentation, it was quite impressive
and so I want to thank him for his service
and wish him well in his retirement.
I was able to attend the preopening
for a restaurant here in Walnut Creek, North Italia,
of delicious food and beautiful atmosphere.
So I wanna welcome the restaurant North Italia
to Walnut Creek.
Personal front, I launched an internship program
for students in the area in Walnut Creek
to work with the city government.
And it was set up on a quarterly program
and we just graduated our first two interns.
So I want to give a big thank you
to Andy Lincoln from Diabo Valley College, DVC,
and Sophia Lockman from Los Lomas
for completing the program.
Very impressed with their efforts and their engagements
and one of which them all the success
on their future endeavors, I know they'll do well.
So for any students in Walnut Creek looking to intern,
please reach out to me.
On the Walnut Creek Visitors Bureau,
attended their board meeting as a liaison
to visit Walnut Creek.
We briefly, we got an update on their marketing strategies
for the World Cup, policy updates
on how they're doing sponsorship funding.
And now if you go to visit Walnut Creek,
there is a little AI tool on the side that you can press
and it's very cool.
You can ask it for recommendations on restaurants,
help you plan a trip in Walnut Creek or a hotel accommodation.
So I encourage you to visit Walnut Creek website
and try out that AI tool.
They had a human trafficking seminar recently
at one of the hotels,
and it was very informative, very impactful.
It is a huge problem, not just regionally,
but across the state and across the nation and the world,
but this was specifically geared towards
helping small businesses recognize
when human trafficking is occurring
and to increase awareness in reporting.
So they are planning a part two in the near future,
So I will bring back that date
once we have the date of the seminar.
And finally, Sister Cities.
We partner in Walnut Creek with Nochedo, Italy
and Soy Folk, Hungary,
where we have a Youth Ambassador Exchange.
My son is, that's for eighth graders in Walnut Creek,
and my youngest is in eighth grade this year.
So he was part of that Youth Ambassador Exchange.
In the fall, he went to Nochedo, Italy,
and we just received our youth ambassador from Nochedo
was stayed with us last week for almost nine days.
His name was Emmanuel, it was a tremendous experience
both for the Italians, Hungarians
and for the students here in Walnut Creek.
I wanna thank very much Deborah Knipp and Kristin Decker
who are the Youth Ambassador Exchange Directors
Sister Cities and a big shout out to Jen Pickett who was our coordinator for the Italian side of
the program which we were a part of. Mayor Wilk and I welcomed them to City Hall in one of their days
and we took a number of outings with him from anywhere from down to Muir Woods, Monterey,
San Francisco the last night some of the kids in our group played music and the band for the kids from
Italy and it was just a really special experience by the time they left on the bus
I think every kid in the program was crying and saying goodbye and I know they'll that those
Relationships they made will last and I think in the spirit of the sister cities exchange
Trying to understand folks from other countries and other cultures and build those connections. I think it was very successful
Thank you, I couldn't agree more.
Mayor Fortem, Francois.
Okay, thank you, Mayor.
I too had a busy schedule since our last council meeting
on St. Patrick's Day.
First off, I attended Council Member Silva and I
are your liaisons to the Recycle Smart Board.
Recycle Smart is that joint powers authority
that manages garbage, recycling, and composting,
not necessarily in that order.
Our mission is you get three cans, right?
And the idea is put as much as you possibly can
and legitimately can in the blue and the green cans
and as little as you can in the black cans.
And so at our last meeting,
because Council Member Silva was absent,
we elected her to be chair this coming year.
So note to self, don't miss a meeting.
You might be promoted to chair.
And so she'll be overseeing, it's a 12-member board made up
of Walnut Creek, Danville, the county, Arinda, and Lafayette.
And so we have a good group of people
and trying to get good services for the community.
We also had a mid-year budget review,
and I'm pleased to report that the revenues
are pretty constant because we all pay our garbage rates
and they go in, they get paid to public services,
and then part of it comes to the authority.
So that part we're well situated on.
Expenses were 48% of budget.
So at the mid-year mark, that's exactly where we want to be.
I also wanted to announce that there's a free compost giveaway.
This year it will be on May 2nd.
And for our area in Walnut Creek, we have to travel to Danville,
if you'd like your free compost, and go to the Recycle Smart
website to sign up so they can expect you. May 2nd in Danville for the Free
Compost giveaway. I had an opportunity to meet with, he's not so new anymore but I
still consider him new, Ryan Hibbs our police chief and we had a great one-on-one
conversation and really pleased that he's at the helm 16 year veteran of
the force so he knows our community extremely well. I know I got came away
with a very positive feeling that that city manager had made an excellent
choice and that we are all in good hands and will remain a safe community
under Ryan's leadership. Let's see and this is in no particular order I attended
the economic development working group committee of the Chamber of Commerce
that was on March 18th the day after our last council meeting and it was
essentially a broker's update of the various different economic sectors in
the city so retail office and medical and this is pretty standard for Walnut
Creek that retail we continue to be a very strong market our vacancy rates for
retail citywide are less than 5% and we're doing better than the statewide
average where we're struggling a bit is on office and we're not alone on that
but we're struggling more than the statewide average particularly in the
downtown Shadelands area where we have vacancy rates of 20% and the state is
looking at vacancy rates of something like 12% so we have more work to do on
that but we have programs in our economic development action plan to
address those vacancies, and that will certainly be a subject of conversation as we embark
on our general plan update here over the next few years.
See, last evening I was pleased to attend a gala for recognizing the library foundation's
authors event, which will be on April 25th at the library.
It's an opportunity, it's a fundraiser for the library, an opportunity for you to dine
with a local author, learn more about what the library foundation, all the programs they
put on and helped fund those in our community. I should have led with this one because this
was one of my favorite ones. I attended the opening of a brewery here in Walnut Creek.
When somebody asked me to come to a brewery, I raised both hands and said, I'll be there.
It's Bear Bottle, which is located right across from Trader Joe's on South California. And the
transform the former Pinky's Pizza Place into a great kind of community hangout. You see people
walking back and forth to it, hanging out, kids playing a ski ball, just really, it's a great
addition. I think they're going to do really, really well there. Okay, we're rounding it up here.
I attended, as a liaison to Rossmore, I attended their board meeting, which is always nice to see.
They always get a good crowd there and it gave a full report.
They're very interested in what's happening at the city and they appreciate the updates.
I give them mostly focused on what we've done on our recent council meetings.
They'd asked questions about implementation of our housing element and talked about kind
of the update we had just provided to the state that we have more work to do.
We had about 200 units identified or building permits issued last year and our state number
is something like 55, 5,800 units.
So they wanted to know how we were going to accomplish that.
I told them the programs that we have in our plan and they were happy to get that update.
And then, let's see, last but not least, I attended a talk at the Lesher Center.
The Lesher Center, in addition to great arts programming
and theater productions, has a newsmakers series,
and it's a series of eight to 10 speakers
over the course of a year.
Last Tuesday night, it was Rick Steves, the travel writer,
and he did a great talk, kind of summarizing,
similar to what Councilmember Davini was talking about
with the Sister Cities program,
how we connect with people from other countries
through travel and break those barriers
and make good connections and relationships.
So it was really, it was great to hear them
and look forward to other speakers.
You don't need to subscribe to the whole series.
You can buy a ticket just for somebody
that you're interested in hearing from.
That's my update.
Thank you, all right, I'm gonna actually go next here
and take the handoff regarding travel
and international exchange, as we had just heard
from Sister Cities as well as from the Rick Steve speaker.
So over the last couple of weeks, I led a delegation that included council members Cindy
Darling and Cindy Silva to Kita City, Japan, which is, while not officially a sister city,
they're a partner city and we signed agreement with them nine years ago.
There's been a lot of student exchanges between Seven Hills School, so middle schoolers back
to Kita City, Kita City coming here as well.
also been exchanges with Las Lomas and they have a Japanese language program
and so they've really been very involved in a lot of conversations and I started
working with them about six to eight months ago to see we would like to as
we've been invited before that when I am mayor we have our council let's go and
they invited us it was a tremendous opportunity to meet with the mayor and
Council there. Kita City is, just to give you, there we are, at the table when we
had first arrived. They had about 50 people, including the mayor and city
council and executives from City Hall, out on the sidewalk waving US flags and
cheering at us as we arrived. We were like the USA basketball team when we came.
So when they come here next year, we're gonna need more than a few people on
the sidewalk. I'm gonna be reaching out to everybody here and beyond, but it was
terrific, this exchange with them, and as we heard from both councilmember
Davini and Mayor Pro Tem Francois, building bridges and exchanging
cultural conversations and discussions, forming these relationships with
government peers overseas and with residents is needed now more than ever.
And we recognize this, our colleagues across the oceans recognize this, and to
I'll give you an example, even though to give,
Walnut Creek is 20 square miles,
we have about 70,000 people.
Kita City, which is on the outskirts of Tokyo,
about 20 minutes from central Tokyo,
is eight square miles and they have 350,000 residents.
So it's so compact, dense housing,
but we share a lot of the same goals and interests
and commonalities when it comes to running cities.
And this understanding is just so hugely important.
think everybody in this room understands how important that is. The more you meet
people and understand people, the less they become the unknown which then
people become fearful of. So the second thing I have to talk about is not nearly
as fun just and this is my last thing so you'll I'll be done at that point. But I
am the liaison to County Connection and to give a quick background here, our bus
system, County Connection was notified by the Department of Transportation in
in September of 2025, so just about six months ago,
the issuance of non-domiciled,
which means legal temporary residents,
not permanent residents, not citizens,
but the issue of regarding,
the issuance of commercial driver's licenses,
including commercial learner permits,
we're going to be implementing a suspension of processing
any new commercial driver's licenses or learner permits,
or the renewal of commercial driver's licenses.
This has impacted county connection.
Non-Daw Massoud commercial driver's licenses,
staff has been monitoring this closely,
and there are individuals who are legal residents,
but they're here temporarily,
who were not due for renewal
and were not required to take any action at that time
in November of 2025,
but due to the direction
of the Department of Transportation,
They were issued, they were issued notification
their licenses would be canceled in 60 days
or on January 6, 2026,
unless they met the new federal guidelines.
And in late 26, the DMV issued a secondary notice
informing these drivers that the cancellation
was postponed for 60 days or on March 6th.
Now what all this means is that drivers,
primarily are the ones that are impacted here,
And many drivers of public transit are here legally,
but temporarily, and this is their means of support.
They have now had their licenses canceled.
And they have been told that when the DMV,
the California State DMV, adheres to the federal guideline
policies that have a variety of different aspects to it,
that they can then reapply for them.
But there is no notice of when this will happen.
These, due to the regulations with public transit,
all of these employees that have been impacted have,
which are six, I should say,
they're six for county connection,
but there are hundreds and hundreds across the state
with all the public transit agencies,
that they've been put on leave,
unfortunately, unpaid leave,
until they're able to get commercial driver's licenses.
this uh while we've been working with the Department of Transportation
we don't know when they will uh clear California DMV to be able to
re-license these. Unfortunately we do feel that California is being targeted in
this instance by the DOT. When I hear more of when this has been
resolved I will bring this forward to our city
council and to all of you. I just found out about this a few days
ago. I'm upset about this because these are people that are here legally and we
need them we need drivers just to let you know that when it comes to public
transit the hardest jobs to hire for are drivers and so we are now telling
drivers that want to work that you can't. So I will have more to this to bring to
this in the months ahead. Can I build on can I go next? Yes councilmember Silva. So
we're about to learn at our next Recycle Smart meeting
that the same thing is happening to garbage truck drivers.
So all of you are gonna see an impact.
It doesn't matter whether you ride the bus or not,
your garbage collection, we're gonna have to have
a conversation about how the routing will work
and what the cost implications are because it's overtime.
And it's to the tune of maybe six drivers
in our service area.
So, on that sweet note, would you like me to just-
Yeah, other than that, life's great, keep on going.
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
So I was fortunate to be able to be with Councilmember Darling
and Mayor Wilk in Kita City.
And if you looked at the photo, our spouses were with us
as well as Mayor Wilk's adult children.
So it was a family vacation.
Let me, it was self-funded.
I think that's important to put out there.
We spend our own money, this is not taxpayer dollars.
So a couple of takeaways from the visit besides the very important message,
which is this is how we ensure world peace is one person at a time and relationships
and really understanding what's happening in the world.
We were taken on two tours that I thought were fascinating.
One was we visited one of the mint print, one of the printing shops for the yen,
their currency is actually in Quita City.
And we have got an insider baseball, look, this is not open to the public ordinarily.
Well, we got to go in and watch it, but we had to set our cell phones into a lockbox
because we couldn't take any pictures.
It was fascinating, very interesting, and the number of colors on the money is incredible.
And the second thing is we went to one of the center, the National Earthquake Centers.
So if you think we have earthquakes in California, they have a lot of them in Japan.
And we, I should've brought the video.
There's a simulator which they show to school kids.
And they simulated, it's a three-room simulator,
and we were all on the floor, and they simulated a 7.0
earthquake for two minutes, and the way it works.
And they use this with youth and adults, and they bring them
into the simulator, and also a museum that shows how they need
to really strap the walls,
strap the furnishings to the walls, et cetera.
in that environment. So that was fascinating and I enjoyed that.
The other two things that I thought was interesting was to really understand that Kita City is
350, 360,000. It is surrounded by Tokyo. It is not a suburb the way we are a suburb of
San Francisco. This is the way West Hollywood is in the middle of Los Angeles. I mean, it's
that intense. It's 14 million people in Tokyo and 40 million in the peripheral area. So
So it would be like the nine-county Bay Area having 40 million people in it because Japan
is the geographic size of California.
Japan has 40 million people, no, many more million people than we have.
We have 40 million in California.
So it's California's population is basically in the Tokyo and its suburbs and surrounds.
They're efficient.
They're courteous.
Those bullet trains, they have a system that we need here.
And we're working toward it in transportation where a single pay system, a single card,
can get you on a bus, can get you on a train, can get you on a subway, and can get you on
a bullet train, as well as you can buy a bento box in the 7-11 fee.
But the other thing is to observe how they cue up because they're respectful of each
other.
They care about people so much in their culture.
But the other thing is you were talking about the intensity of development and how many
people there are. My husband and I visited a historic city called Takayama
which is outside Nagoya. It has 80,000 people so it's about the size of Walnut
Creek except it's very different because it has historic streets that are 400 or
500 years. For 5A, in order for the city to levy assessments for the Downtown
Walnut Creek Business Improvement District or BID and the Downtown Walnut
Creek South Business Improvement District or SBID the City Council must
first conduct a public hearing at which it must hear and consider all protests
against the levy of the assessments. If written protests are received from the
owners of businesses in the proposed area which will pay 50% or more of the
assessment proposed to be levied, no further proceedings to levy the
assessment shall be taken for a period of one year from the date of the finding
of a majority protest by the City Council. If there is no majority protest
then the council may adopt the resolutions confirming the assessment
reports submitted. Written protests must be received by the City Clerk at or
before the time fixed for the public hearing. At this time we'll now open the
public hearing for item number 5A for the Downtown Walnut Creek
Business Improvement District and the Downtown Walnut Creek South Business
Improvement District. I invite any men with an undelivered written protest to
present it to the City Clerk immediately. Now, no further written protests will be
accepted and I invite economic development manager Mike Neiman forward
to provide the presentation. Thank you Mayor and good evening council members
members of the public I'm Mike Neiman your economic development manager and
this item as you mentioned is step two in the process to adopt new fees for the
business improvement district and South business improvement districts both of
of which are located in downtown.
At the last hearing on March 17th,
you have heard a presentation from downtown
on their accomplishments and their annual report
for the fiscal year 2026.
And this is the second step in the process to complete.
Staff had expeditiously sent out protest ballots
to all businesses located in both the business improvement
and south business improvement district.
And we have not received any protests.
So with this, the second step would
be to complete the adoption of the resolutions.
And hence, is the recommendation in front of you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mike.
Do we have any questions?
No questions.
All right.
Well, then I will open up the item for public comment.
Please step forward to the podium.
If there's anybody here to talk on this item,
please also complete a speaker card available
on the counter near the entrance doorway,
or I think at the front.
Once at the podium, please introduce yourself
and city residents for the record,
consistent with city policies related to public comments.
Each speaker will have two minutes to make your remarks.
Written comments submitted, if any,
have been posted to the city's website for public review
and are included in the meeting record,
but will not be separately read into the record.
I do not see anybody for public comment,
So I will close the public comment portion,
bring it back to council for any discussion and or a motion.
I will move to adopt the resolution
levying the annual assessment
for the Downtown Walnut Creek Business Improvement District
bid for FY27 and the same thing for the S bid for FY27.
Second.
We have a motion to second.
Let me first ask city clerk if there's a majority protest
and if they have been received.
No bid protests have been received.
Thank you very much, then we can have a roll call.
Council Member Darling.
Aye.
Council Member Silva.
Aye.
Council Member Davenny.
Aye.
Mayor Pro Tem Francois.
Aye.
Mayor Wilk.
Aye.
Motion carried.
All right, that is the shortest item on the agenda.
I don't think the next one will be as short.
I'll be up to, are we all okay at this point?
Don't need a break?
Okay.
So the next item is a public hearing regarding two appeals
from the decision of the Planning Commission
on February 12th, 2026, approving design review,
investing tentative map, density bonus, and tree removal,
and drip line encroachment permits
for the Mitchell Town Homes Project application number
Y24 through O26, location 2775-2855, Mitchell Drive,
2730-2880, Shadelands Drive,
and a portion of 2125 Oak Grove Road, forgive me,
APNs 143-040-099, 143-040-100,
and 143-040-079.
We're in the unusual situation here
of having two separate appeals for one item.
I believe probably most of you are here
because of these items.
The public hearing procedures are as follows.
These rules are designed to provide the appellants
and the applicant the ability to present their arguments,
provide rebuttals, and be heard at this hearing
as well as to give everyone a full voice
in these proceedings.
So I will open up the public hearing at this point
and we'll have our staff presentation first
and I invite staff to provide it.
Good evening Mayor Wilk and members of the council.
My name is Simmer Gill, Senior Planner with the city
and we are here tonight to consider the two appeals
that were filed on Planning Commission's decision
of the Mitchell Town Homes Project
that will be located within the Shailens Business Park.
And because this is a de novo hearing,
I will present the entire project
and cover all of the project details
that are listed on this slide
before I go into the points of appeal.
And because this project has many parts,
I do appreciate and advance your patience
as I get through everything.
Since this project was appealed,
the entire project is up for consideration tonight.
Therefore certification of the EIR
and adoption of the Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting
Program as well as approval of the project entitlements
that are listed on this slide
do require council action tonight.
And just to quickly orient you with the site,
It is zoned plan development and it is a 22-acre parcel
that consists of 11 office buildings,
that's known as the Walnut Creek Executive Park.
And the surrounding area consists of a mix of office,
commercial, as well as residential uses.
And just for some site context,
directly across the street from the project site
to the along the south elevation
is the Via Monte Senior Housing Facility,
as well as the Orchard Shopping Center,
and further east on Oak Grove Road
are the residential uses known as the Woodlands Community,
and of course, all other uses as shown on this slide.
And just to quickly go over the project site boundaries,
the highlighted yellow is the project site,
and I did want to point out that it does not extend,
the project frontage does not extend onto Oak Grove Road,
And all of the 11 buildings within this footprint
of that yellow dashed line will be demolished
for proposed construction.
And the adjacent parcels that,
or the uses that front Oak Grove Road,
the three-story office building,
the Bank of America building,
as well as the Montessori Daycare,
these will all remain and they are not part of this project.
They are all separate parcels.
And just to quickly touch on some project timeline,
On October 18th of 2023,
the city did receive a SB 330 application
filed under the builder's remedy provisions.
And on April 9th of 2024,
a formal planning application was submitted to the city.
And since then, this project has undergone
approximately two and a half years of review,
including multiple rounds of plan revisions,
environmental analysis, multiple public hearings,
as well as a 90 day EIR review period
to gather public feedback.
And then on February 12th, 2026,
the Planning Commission did approve the project
and certify the EIR.
And within that 10 day appeal period,
the city did receive two appeals,
and that is why we're here tonight.
So the next few slides, I'll quickly go through
the various state housing laws
that this project is being processed under.
Start with SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act,
which essentially states that the city's review is limited
if project meets all applicable city's objective standards.
And the project cannot be denied
unless there's specific health or safety impacts
that cannot be mitigated.
And the project also is limited
to a maximum of five public hearings
in order to follow the streamlined project meeting process
under SB 330, and tonight is the fourth public hearing.
Under the builder's remedy provision,
it does allow developers to propose housing projects
that exceed local zoning or not consistent with the zoning.
And no legislative actions are required
for a builder's remedy project,
such as no rezone or general plan amendment.
And the city's authority to deny such a project is limited
and must be supported by statutory findings.
And as you know, the existing zoning,
which is planned development that refers
to business park development standards,
does not allow residential uses and under the builder's remedy provisions,
the government code section that's outlined here,
it states that if current zoning does not allow housing,
then the alternative best-fit development standard must be applied,
and no legislative actions could be required.
Because this is a multifamily residential project,
the city did determine that the most comparable zone would be
the multifamily M2 as well as the multifamily medium density range which
does allow 14 to 22 dwelling units per acre and this project is proposing 19
dwelling units per acre so it falls within that range. So in addition to the
business park zoning standards as well as the city's design standards the M2
standards would also apply to this project. The project is also utilizing
the density bonus law which does allow waivers and concessions to development
standards if a project is providing affordable units. And here I've just
defined what a waiver is and a concession for the public and the
applicant is proposing 55 low-income units exceeding the city's 7%
inclusionary housing requirement therefore is could could receive up to
unlimited waivers to the city's development standards. The applicant is
requesting 10 waivers tonight and no concessions. The waivers are related
essentially to building setbacks and storage space per unit requirements and
the multifamily zone and that table is included as part of in the resolutions
attachments one and two tonight. Moving into the project proposal the 422 unit
three-story townhome development does consist of a mix of building types that
range from two plex to seven plex. Each unit has a two-car garage and outdoor
decks and the units are arranged across 82 buildings and the height varies from
38 to 40 feet. 955 parking spaces are being provided. 542 new trees are
proposed as part of the new landscape palette.
Frontage improvements include new sidewalk
along Mitchell and Shadelands Drive.
Though not required or triggered by this project,
the applicant did work with the city and consistent with
the Shadelands multimodal plan is providing a roundabout
at the intersection or at the corner of Shadelands and via
Monte as well as a raised crosswalk and
bike lane extensions that'll extend beyond the project frontage along both
Mitchell and Shadelands. The applicant is also providing a monetary contribution
and the applicant tonight does have a presentation so I'll let them go into
more detail of that the specifics of that. The project is also preserving eight
existing trees on site and requesting removal of 449 trees. So the EIR did
analyze all of the project impacts and compliance with CEQA and listed the
topic areas listed under the CEQA guidelines or Appendix G and included on
this slide were studied as part of the environmental review of the project and
the ones listed to the left of your slide did result in less than significant
or no impact therefore no mitigation was required for these topic areas and the
ones listed to the right did have potential impacts. However, the impacts would be mitigated
to a less than significant level with the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program. And these MMRPs will be enforced through the conditions of approval
prior to any work on this project. And the EIR did conclude that there would be no impacts
that remains significant or unavoidable.
So the EIR did go through a robust public comment process
and approximately 65 comment letters were received.
All were responded to in the final EIR
and those are included the entire package for the draft EIR
as well as the final EIRs include exhibits A
and B of your packet tonight.
And listed here are really just the common theme
comments received from the members of the public. And the moving on to the
subdivision which will create 82 lots and 49 parcels and here is the new the
site layout. Here is the proposed site plan. Access to the site is gained from
both Mitchell and Shailin's Drive which will then connect to a series of
internal roadways within the development. I did want to point out that there's no
through access for vehicles to cross this site from Mitchell to Shadelands.
The applicant intentionally designed his project that way and he couldn't touch on that as
part of his presentation, but they are providing a central walkway through the site which essentially
allows the public to cross from Mitchell to Shadelands for easy access.
And this project will be developed in two phases.
Again, the applicant can go over this.
Here is a detailed architectural site plan, again, seven building types laid across the
development, and two architectural building styles are proposed.
One is neighborhood one and neighborhood two, and I believe this architectural site plan
gives you a better idea that access to a neighborhood one will only be gained from Mitchell Drive,
and for neighborhood two, you can only access it through Shadelands Drive.
neighborhood one has six building types, neighborhood two has four of the larger building
types.
And the unit sizes range from 1300 to 2157 square feet with two to four bedroom units.
And each one provides a two-car garage for each unit with the exception of plan one in
neighborhood two, which has a tandem garage design.
And here are project renderings, really just eventually to show you what this will look
like once it's developed.
To the top left, that photo or rendering would be if you're standing at the intersection
of Viamante and Chaylands and looking into the project site.
This also shows a depiction of that roundabout that's proposed.
And here are the two architectural styles that are proposed in neighborhood one.
Four color schemes are proposed as part of this.
The same for neighborhood two.
There are four separate color schemes proposed.
And I believe we do have the color material boards,
if you would like to pass it around.
But the project has the architecture of the buildings
have been designed to comply with the city's design
standards.
And if needed, the applicant could go more
into the design details.
So the project is removing 449 trees,
of which the city arborist did approve 73
based on the size, health, and species of those trees.
The remaining 376 trees do require city council approval
to remove.
I did want to point out that none of these
are considered highly protected trees
per the city's tree preservation ordinance.
The applicant is also preserving
the existing eight mature trees
that are circled here in green.
As well as the off-site 19 off-site trees that are circled here and many of these are highly protected oak trees
That are being preserved and here is the proposed landscaping palette
I know there's a lot of little dots with colors, but I think what that's trying to show is the
542 new trees that range in size from 24 inch to 36 inch box and
and to the far left of your slide are all of the trees that are proposed along the project
frontages as well as the perimeter of the site and the remaining trees as listed in the landscaping
plan are scattered throughout the site. Okay so the next few slides I will walk through the
key issues raised in both appeals with staff responses and both the appellate issues are
summarized here. So the first appeal received was from Steve Elster with
Friends of Walnut Creek and he did raise a question regarding the builder's
remedy that it does not apply to this project because the city already had a
substantially compliant housing element so staff's response to that is under
state law it explicitly states that substantial compliance is HCD
certification or a court decision. And the city did have a adopted housing
element, however it was not HCD certified at the time, therefore the project does
qualify to be processed under Builders Remedy. The second point raised was that
the EIR did not sufficiently analyze senior living alternative. The EIR did
analyze and eliminate the senior living alternative as infeasible and
because it did not serve the project goals such as providing affordable
housing as well as any multimodal improvements to that area. The applicant
has also stated that they're not a senior housing developer so I
believe it would not be viable for them. And because this was raised as a point
of appeal, the First Carbon Solutions Environmental Consultant that assisted
with the EIR also prepared additional senior alternative analysis and I
believe that's included as attachment 18 of your packet tonight and that did
conclude that the impacts would be similar if there was a senior living on
site or greater therefore the EIR does remain valid and there have been no new
facts or evidence that's been presented to the city that would trigger
additional environmental review. And the third point raised was the EIR traffic
analysis is not adequate. Staff's response is that the EIR did evaluate the vehicle miles
traveled as required under CEQA. The EIR also evaluated the level of service for congestion
though not required under CEQA and the results did state that intersections would continue
to operate at acceptable levels and the impact would be less than significant. And the traffic
analysis did conclude that the project would generate fewer trips than the existing office
use on site. And the traffic conditions on Ignacio Valley Road will occur with or without
this project and that was what was concluded in the EIR. And no additional mitigation was
required for traffic. I also wanted to point out that in addition to the W-Trans traffic
study that was prepared for this project and reviewed by the city. The city did get that
traffic study peer reviewed by an outside traffic engineering firm, Fair and Pierce,
just to confirm that, are the conclusions valid or just to confirm those conclusions
and that was Fair and Pierce did conclude the same outcome. And the fourth point of
appeal was that the public notice was not adequate. So the city did follow all
code required noticing requirements, which is the standard mailing to the 300
foot radius as well as notifying the interested parties and also on-site
mailing. All CEQA required notices followed that same noticing procedure
and the city also provided more noticing beyond what is listed here for this
particular appeal hearing. As you see to the right, the site notice was expanded
beyond the project frontage, so beyond both Mitchell and Chaitlin's. There were
posters placed along several, along Oak Grove Road, one at the corner of
Citrus Circle near the New Chick-fil-A restaurant, and one between the two
shopping centers, Encina Grande and the Orchards, as well as further to the west
on North Wiggett Lane just to capture if if it was not just to be able to
capture more for tonight's public hearing and as counsels I think standard
practice for any appeal projects it is published in the newspaper as well and
for the Planning Commission all of the same criteria was followed with the
exception of the newspaper publication. Okay so moving on to the second appeal
tonight which was provided by Mike Heller representing the via Monte
community. He did raise concerns regarding the construction impacts to
the senior living residences across the street. So staff's response to that is
that EIR was evaluated, did evaluate air quality impacts per the Bay Area Air
District guidelines and it did include measures to reduce these impacts to a
less than significant, and those are conditions of approval of this project.
And the mitigation were the standard construction measures, and there was a health risk assessment
also done in the EIR that did evaluate construction emissions from the project, and it did conclude
that the existing roadways are the primary contributors and not the project construction.
The assessment also did show that there would be no significant health risk impacts from
from the project that cannot be mitigated.
And there's been no evidence really supporting the need
for additional measures such as a solid barrier.
I believe that MMRP has already addressed
the mitigation measures that would bring this project
to a less than significant level.
And the project is required to comply
with all federal, state, and local city regulations
related to asbestos hazardous materials
and construction practices.
And the third point raised was that the concern of the number of trees that are being removed
as they improve air quality.
Staff's response is that the tree removal is approval and replacement followed the municipal
code requirements and 542 new trees are being proposed due to the loss of trees on site
and also preserving the existing redwood trees in the central open space area and the valley
oak I believe is at the far left corner of the site, and then the offsite perimeter trees
are also being protected in place.
And I believe first carbon solutions, the environmental consulting could speak more
on this, but it was stated in their memo that the new trees would provide long-term canopy
and more carbon absorption and air quality and environmental benefits to this site.
The third point raised was concerns related to traffic on Shadelands and emergency access.
So the EIR did evaluate traffic and emergency services as well as access to the site.
And the existing and projected conditions evaluated Shadelands drive as well.
And no adverse impacts would impacts to the roadway operations was what was concluded.
And the site design does maintain adequate access to emergency vehicles.
And this project was reviewed by the Contra Costa Fire District as well as the Walnut
Creek Police Department to confirm and verify that there would be no impacts to the emergency
response times with the development of this project.
And the fourth and final point of appeal from Villa Monte was regarding construction and
monitoring and staff's response is the project will comply with the city
requirements and there is a pre-construction meeting that is
required prior to issuance of any permits. So this is standard city
practice where the city staff meets with the applicant's team and they are
required to notify all properties within a 300-foot radius at least two working
days prior to start of any work. This has also been added though as a standard
practice and we follow this and I believe the applicants team provides a
copy of the notice to city staff to show confirm compliance but given that this
has been raised by the members of the public we have added this as a condition
and the errata you have before you tonight includes this condition which
would modify attachments one and two and the applicant has also been coordinating
with the via Monte residences and we'll keep open lines of communication but
But again, I'll let the applicant speak more on that.
So in summary, all of the issues that have been raised tonight through the appeals have
been addressed in the EIR and the project review.
And the appeals did not identify any deficiencies or did not identify any feasible alternatives
to really lessen those impacts.
And there's been no evidence in the record of any specific adverse impact to public health
safety and no impacts as part of this project will remain significant or
unavoidable and the project does comply with state housing law the city
requirements as well as city standards and the EIR the project design as well
as the mitigation measures address the concerns and the Planning Commission's
decision was supported by findings and substantial evidence in the record
Therefore the staff does recommend that the City Council adopt the two
resolutions, denying both of the appeals and affirming Planning Commission's
decision, as well as certifying the EIR, approving the project entitlement,
subject to the conditions, and adopting the errata to attachment one and
two, that does include that new condition that I've addressed. And so apart from
myself we do have several staff members from the city as well as first carbon
solutions who is our environmental consultant that assisted the city in
preparing the EIR and for the record a total of 77 public comments were
received and those are included in your packet as attachment 19 and I believe
there are several letters both in support and in opposition there's been a
mix of both in that packet and the applicant also has a presentation tonight and with that
I do conclude my presentation but happy to answer any questions the other way thank you.
Thank you so much.
So I just want to set the table here for people that are here in the audience about how this
works on the public hearing and questions.
So typically after every presentation, which would be by the appellants, the applicant,
there's also rebuttals, the council asks questions of each one of them.
But I want to be cognizant that you've all been sitting here for an hour and 45 minutes,
and if we have the present after potential questions now, there would be possibly up
to another hour of presentations by the applicants, by the applicant and the appellants.
And so, as we start questions on the council, I want to be us to all take that into awareness
that we've got people that want to say something here.
And so, let's try at this point to limit questions to essential questions that are burning desire
to ask, because we're going to have the opportunity to ask questions after everybody is spoken
at the end as well.
So, with that, we'll open up questions to Simar, but again, I want to keep that.
I'm going to hold my questions till the end.
I'm going to hold my questions at the end as well.
Hold.
All right, we're going to hold right now.
So with that, thank you all.
I'm sure the audience thinks this is well.
With that, let's bring up Appellate number one,
Friends of Walnut Creek, Steve Elster.
And you will have 15 minutes to present.
And then we'll go from there.
Appellate number one, I feel like this is the old dating game.
Good evening, Mayor Welk and City Council members.
My name is Steve Elster, and I'm here on behalf of Friends of Walnut Creek.
We're not here to oppose housing.
In fact, our proposed alternative of a senior living center would add more than
twice the number of homes to our area's housing inventory compared to the proposed
development.
We are here because this decision rests on unresolved legal and analytical issues,
and because you still have the opportunity to evaluate this proposal without
inapplicable legal constraints and to require a more complete and defensible
record before proceeding.
First, the project has been processed under the assumption that it qualifies for
the builder's remedy. That assumption is incorrect.
There's no debate that the city's housing element is substantially compliant.
As you can see, uh, if you take a look at exact exhibit one in our appeal,
you our city council adopted the city's substantially compliant housing element
on August 1st, 2023, which was later confirmed by the state.
The issue here is the date on which the city's housing element was substantially
compliant.
Exhibit three shows that the HCD concluded on October 24th of 23 that the
housing element adopted on August one was substantially compliant.
If the city or an interested third party were to bring the issue of the date of substantial
compliance to a court, we believe that a court will find that the housing element adopted
by the city on August 1 was substantially compliant on that date and certainly prior
to signature's application.
A court would need to do two things.
First apply government code 65585.03 to determine if it fundamentally changes the framework
for evaluating this proposal.
The applicant's proposed development would, among other things, require the destruction
of numerous office buildings in the Shadelands and uproot many businesses and jobs located
there.
That is not permitted under the City's general plan, but if the builder's remedy applies,
the City has little say over the elimination of these local businesses and jobs.
Second, the EIR fails to do something CEQA explicitly requires.
It does not adequately analyze a feasible alternative, a senior living community.
The feasibility of a senior living community is particularly obvious because there are
already two senior living communities immediately adjacent to the site.
A senior living community would also generate less and materially different traffic patterns
with far less peak hour commuter traffic.
Exhibit four is the ITE's traffic generation rates for a senior living community.
five in our appeal compares the traffic generated by the proposed townhomes to the traffic generated
from a senior living community with more than twice as many people. A senior living community
with twice as much housing would likely generate less traffic than the Mitchell Townhomes,
and the timing and direction of the car trips generated by a senior living community would
differ substantially and favorably from what this development would generate, such as by
not contributing to peak AM outbound traffic towards downtown and the 680 or peak PM inbound
traffic.
Other environmental impacts would also be reduced or avoided by a senior living community
instead of the Mitchell Townhomes.
Under CEQA, an EIR must meaningfully evaluate alternatives that could lessen environmental
harm and that did not happen here.
Even under the builder's remedy framework, if it applied, the city must still consider
whether a feasible alternative could avoid specific adverse public health or safety impacts,
and that analysis was not done.
Feasibility is not simply what would allow a developer to maximize its profits at the
community's expense.
There's also nothing that says that feasibility means protecting the purported applicability
of the builder's remedy to a developer's proposal.
Clearly a senior living community adjacent to another senior living community is feasible
and should be properly considered.
Third, the EIR fails to accurately disclose
and analyze the project's real-world impacts,
especially traffic.
The results of the traffic study are no better
than the underlying assumptions
made to generate those results.
Here, one obvious error is the traffic studies use
of ITE code 710, which is applicable
to general office buildings,
such as those in downtown Walnut Creek.
The report should have used ITE code 750,
which is applicable to office parks such as the shade lanes.
This error renders the study's results suspect
such as its conclusion that this development
would actually reduce traffic.
In addition to using the wrong ITE code,
the traffic study also emphasizes a reduction
in net daily trips, but that metric is misleading.
What actually matters to the people who live in this city
and what the EIR does not properly evaluate
is outbound traffic in the morning
and inbound traffic in the evening,
which are precisely the times and directions
when congestion is already at its worst.
The EIR even admits those increases will occur,
but does not adequately analyze them.
Ignacio Valley is already operating at unacceptable levels.
Treat Boulevard, another key corridor,
is not meaningfully analyzed at all.
Local streets will experience cut-through traffic,
increasing risks to children at nearby preschools, residents and the folks living at Villa Monte.
And this is not theoretical, the project would concentrate traffic at fewer driveways, increase
congestion near a senior living community and preschools, and create new safety hazards
during both operation and construction.
These are specific foreseeable and unmitigated impacts.
CEQA requires full disclosure, not selective metrics that obscure the true effects.
Fourth, the city failed to provide meaningful notice to the residents most affected.
While the city may have met or did meet the legal requirements, the reality is this.
The neighborhoods that will experience the greatest traffic impacts south of Ignacio
Valley and east of Oak Grove were not adequately notified.
As a result, those residents were effectively excluded from this process, and that undermines
a core principle of CEQA and public governance informed public participation.
When the people most affected don't even know a development is being considered, the process
cannot be considered fair or complete.
We're not asking for denial tonight.
We're asking for a responsible, legally sound process.
Specifically, before you make any decision regarding this proposal, we ask that you,
one, consider this proposal without the limitations improperly imposed on you by the builder's
remedy. Two, require a supplemental traffic study that applies correct IT codes and is
otherwise credible, analyzes directional peak traffic, evaluates treat boulevard, and evaluates
impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. Three, a supplemental EIR analysis of a senior living
community alternative, including whether it reduces traffic and safety impacts and whether
it remains feasible and affordable. And four, provide expanded notice so that all affected
residents are aware of this proposal. This decision is not just about one
project, it is about whether Walnut Creek applies the law correctly, fully discloses
environmental impacts, and gives its residents a meaningful voice. Right now
the record does not meet those standards, but you have the opportunity to correct
that. We respectfully ask that you do so. Thank you. Thank you Steve. Again council
You can ask questions now or wait until later and specific, ok.
Thank you very much for your comments.
Would you please provide your background professionally and do you practice municipal law and environmental
studies?
I am an attorney but I don't practice municipal law.
And what about your experience in environmental work, CEQA?
Nothing professional.
Ok, thank you.
That's what we're doing.
Questions here?
Okay.
Thank you, and there'll be a rebuttal
and there'll maybe questions later.
Thanks.
All right, next we have Appellate Number 2,
Mike Heller and Group, 15 minutes total
with one or more speakers.
And please come to the podium.
Right. Here we go.
There is Slide Number 1.
Mayor, City Council, thank you.
I'm Mike Heller.
and one of the eight signers of this appeal live at Via Monte Senior Living right across
Shadelands from the proposed project site. We have several hundred seniors living there
median age 68, all sensitive receptors no matter how you look at it.
So let's check down means this.
We did it.
All right.
So wanted to comment up front.
We're not here and the purpose of this appeal
is not to suggest that you deny this project.
What we would like to put before you
is some examples of considerations,
particularly impacting the seniors at Viamante
that were either not considered
or considered in a light way,
and it needs further look.
So if you were to approve this project,
we would like you to add additional conditions of approval.
So these are the six items that were in our written appeal.
I'm sure you've had a chance to look at those.
I'll say a few words about each one of these.
I like the language of the Air Resources Board,
the fugitive dust, implying there is, I guess,
dust that behaves, stays on site,
and the fugitive dust that tries to escape.
So we are worried about the fugitive dust.
We think a great help in this would
be a solid barrier along the perimeter of the construction project. So something
solid wood would probably be best. The applicant has met with us and said they
will put a solid panel like you see in the green picture on the chain link
fence. They are gonna have a chain links fence but it'll be a color to improve
chain link fence. And that would definitely, we've told the applicant that
would be a big improvement. But as you can see in the right hand picture, unless
it's fairly heavy gauge material and properly maintained, this isn't really
going to be very successful in capturing that fugitive dust. Now our second point
has to do with asbestos. We don't need to say much about this. One of the key
elements of the regulation involving asbestos removal and disposal is
notification of the relevant regulatory agencies. We simply would like a
condition of approval that says we'd like to be notified also. We have seniors
who might want to take a walk outside and we might want to say Wednesday would
not be a good day to take a walk outside if we knew what was going to happen on Wednesday.
This scenario view of part of the site, you can see all of the existing trees that are
in this portion of the site, mature trees, we are simply dismayed at the small number
of trees that can be preserved. Naturally a project of this density is going to
require removal of a lot of trees, but it's very sad that of the 103 redwoods
for example only seven would remain. And beyond that the trees that are to be
planted, this is good, but there's no redwoods to be planted in the plant
pallet, the replacement trees. The good news is the applicant is intending to use
24 inch or 36 inch tubs which will help the shade yet replaced a little quicker
than it would be with smaller nursery size trees. Item four is continuous air
quality monitoring. We're intrigued that neither the applicant nor the city seems
to think monitoring the air quality is a good idea or necessary. Here's some
things that would be accomplished if we did monitor the air quality. First, most
of you know that the most dangerous part of bad air is not what you can see. It's
It's what's known as PM 2.5, very small particulate matter which is invisible to the naked eye.
If you look on the Bay Area Quality District website, there's a big explanation there of
the health effects of this.
If you wait until you see a cloud of big dust coming towards you, if you're a senior with
asthma, COPD on oxygen, you might be well on your way to the ambulance before you even
notice something is wrong, but suitable air quality monitors would have alerted you to
that.
Now, the mitigating measures in the EIR say, well, what we'll do is we'll minimize the
amount of dust in particulate matter that's generated.
That's a wonderful idea, but how will we know if these measures are successful?
how will they be gauged? Again, you can't tell just by looking for a cloud of visible dirt.
We have a lot of people living at Viamante who have health concerns, respiratory issues.
If the air quality is as good as the EIR's consultants hope for, then this would be very
reassuring to say we're not just hoping we're actually able to show you that
that's true. On the other hand if the air quality monitors say the air quality
is not good it also identifies two things. How bad is it? The EPA scale is
what's used in these monitors that we are looking at and it also enables you
to very easily distinguish an ongoing problem from just a blip.
So if we have one badly tuned dump truck that's sitting out idling
for a while and the particulate matter spikes up, looking at the output
from the sensors and say, but it went away in 10 minutes.
So it's not something we need a big effort to deal with.
So here's what the sensors look like.
They, as I mentioned, concentrate on the PM 2.5 Index Standard.
They're laser-based.
Each of those sensors sends data every two minutes
to a website which is publicly accessible.
You can access it.
The applicant can access it.
Residents of Viamoni can access it.
No registration, no passwords, no fees, nothing.
If you select on your computer or phone any one of these,
this is the Walnut Creek area I'm using as an example.
You see this sort of data.
The left shows you for today.
This is showing you in the EPA scale.
Are you in the green satisfactory error?
Yellow, caution, red creeping up the scale.
So it shows you right now and for earlier time periods
this day. On the right you see data for the last five days. So this is one of the ways you see
what's just a temporary thing and what is a long-term systemic problem. This data, by the way,
is from a sensor that's at the corner of Almond and Shoei just a few blocks from here over past
It's the Lecture Center.
So the staff report says we don't have any evidence
or data that relates to the possibility
of ambulances being delayed by congestion.
Well, no, we don't, but we have a lot of photographs
and we have a lot of witnesses who could tell you
that the traffic is already a bad,
and as other speakers have mentioned,
this is particularly true during the morning
evening rush hours.
The applicant has described to us that their belief is that the roundabout and the raised
crosswalk, which hasn't been previously mentioned, will in concert help to slow down traffic,
which might have the effect of discouraging some of the Ignacio Valley drivers who like
to take a bypass and zip around Shadelands just to avoid the Oak Grove, Shadelands intersection.
That remains to be seen, we're hopeful, but we also know we can see that left turns are a common
cause of traffic backing up. So an additional thing we would like for you to consider is making the
easterly driveway of the project right turn only in and right turn only out so there wouldn't be
any delays due to left turns due to the traffic there. Now remember the westerly driveway from
the project comes out at the roundabout so that would be the preferred exit for new residents
who could easily go and excuse me any direction they wanted to. So we talked about asbestos so
it's not just the asbestos we're worried about, the demolition itself, all of the haul trucks that
are going to be idling and waiting to get filled up and loaded and so on. We'd really like to know
a week or two in advance. Again, should we have our bocce tournaments on Thursday or should we
better stay inside on Thursday. So, very simple. Here's the summary. Here are the
conditions of approval we would like to see you add to this project. An 8-foot
solid dust barrier along shade lands. We'd like to know dates for asbestos
removal in advance. There's any way at all to try to preserve a few more
trees, that would be wonderful, but at least we could include redwoods in the
new trees to be planted. We'd like a condition of approval be that the
applicant provide some funding for us to establish and maintain for four to five
years a continuous air quality management system. It's completely
automated along Shaderlands Drive. Right in, right turn in, right turn out at the
easterly project driveway and weekly or bi-weekly distribution via some
mechanism of the construction schedule particularly demolition and activities
that will entail a lot of truck traffic, a lot of idling traffic. The applicant
had said they'd be happy to have a point of contact at Via Monte to facilitate
communications. We'd welcome that, but we need a bit of advance notice or we can't
schedule activities for our senior community. So again, we like housing.
California needs housing. This is a place where housing could, without too much
trouble, be built. But we'd like the neighbors, and in particular the seniors
living right across the street, to be given a little more consideration. I'd
like to ask if you're able, anyone who's here from Viamante, would you stand up
Just for a second.
So speaking on behalf of all my fellow seniors,
thank you for your attention and considering
how you might ameliorate some of our concerns in this project.
Thank you.
And thank you very much.
Everybody that just stood up, I'm just curious.
You can just raise your hand.
You don't have to stand up again.
How many are here in support of the appeal that was just
presented by Mr. Heller?
We'll get to that with public comment later.
Let me ask right now if we have council questions
specifically for Mr. Heller at this time
or anything that you would like to ask later,
we can certainly hold up for that.
Just to let everybody know here and at the dais too,
after this we'll have the applicant present
and then we're gonna take a break.
So that we have a chance to take care
of what we need to do as well.
And then we'll come back at that point for public comment.
So do we have any questions for Mr. Heller?
One question.
Thank you very much, Mr. Heller, for your presentation
on behalf of your community.
Were these same eight items presented at the Planning
Commission meeting, or has this list
been elaborated and expanded since the Planning Commission
hearing?
The concerns were all part of our input to the Planning
Commission hearing. What we've obviously learned after studying the EIR and the
final EIR is that perhaps more detail, more specifics were appropriate, and so
that's what we've done here. So this was in response to the post Planning
Commission opportunity. Environmental documents were available at the Planning
Commission and approved by the Planning Commission. The draft EIR, yes, and
and then which became final, I guess.
So for example, the question about the air quality monitoring
systems, you did not present that at the planning commission.
OK, thank you very much.
Questions down.
Mr. Heller, before you sit down, sir.
Your voice is.
Yes, please.
Thank you for the presentation.
I had a similar question in terms of kind of the,
you know, there's a presentation in the staff report
that indicated that there was a meeting
between Villa Monte and the applicant
where some of these concerns were addressed
and I recognize that perhaps not all of them were resolved,
but maybe if you could summarize some of the ones
that you felt like, if you felt like you made some progress
on your concerns being addressed.
So I mentioned the first item about adding the green solid paneling to the chain link
fence.
So that was suggested by the applicants or presented by them and we think that's a great
idea.
That would be a positive step there.
Wood might be better but that might work.
We don't know.
So that would be one.
We had discussion about the driveways, the easterly driveway of the project is directly
across from the Viamante driveway.
We only have one driveway, there will be two from the project.
Ours is coming up out of an underground garage and it is short.
There's not much stacking room there.
So backups and so on are to be avoided.
applicant wasn't in agreement with that idea or we didn't reach any conclusion so that would be
examples. I appreciate that and just for clarity on the you know I'm familiar on your phone you
can look for the air quality index and see and it's generalized right it's not you're asking for
something that's more localized just for via Monte is that correct? Yes so the map I showed you of the
The Walnut Creek area, every circle on that
is an existing air quality monitor,
a sensor that's operating.
And they every two minutes upload data via the internet
to that website that you saw.
So what we'd be doing would be adding some more circles
on that map that would be along shade lines
on the front of our building facing shade lines.
And we'll probably put one in the back as a control
to be sure there's nothing depending on the wind direction and all of that okay
thank you I appreciate that certainly that's part of any any questions at this
time okay wait thank you very much presentation mr. Heller thank you and at
this time we'll have the applicant come forward I'll have 30 minutes total and
after that we're going to take a break for a few minutes and first we'll hear
the applicant. Good evening. Good evening.
All right. Well, good evening, Mayor Wilk and council members. On behalf of Signature Development
Group, my name is Jonathan Fern, senior director of development, a senior vice president development,
and on behalf of our whole team, we are happy to present our Missile Drive Town Homes project
this evening. I will not need 30 minutes but this is a no hero hearing so I will
take you through some of the things that we talked about during planning
commissioning. So just to talk about the site plan quickly we all know it's 422
total townhomes, two acres of publicly accessible open space scattered
throughout mainly focused on that east-west spine there in the middle of
the site. We are incorporating many of the elements of the Shadelands multi
modal plan, including widen sidewalks along Mitchell and Shadelands as well as
extended bike lanes, which we'll talk about a little bit later. We're also, as
Simmer mentioned, retaining those seven redwoods in the central Redwood Grove
and we've organized our central open space around those redwoods. We are
increasing the tree canopy from what exists today, 488 trees to 542 trees, 111
public parking spaces organized on those internal roadways there, including
30 bike parking spaces organized in the publicly accessible open spaces.
As Simmer mentioned, 55 units available to low-income households.
That's nearly twice the city code.
And then meaningful measures towards the city's renal requirements for both low-income and
above-modern income households as well.
We are, as Simmer mentioned, we have two quote-unquote neighborhoods, which really are different
product types neighborhood one are in one product if you will focused on the
north side of the of the property the north half of the property are into
product on the south side of the property but we're constructing the
project in two phases phase one is the eastern half of the property basically
and then phase two is the western half we are doing it in phases we know we
can't absorb 422 units all at one time so we do want to phase approach this the
reason why we're doing it in this fashion is to have a diversity of
offering and product types so we're having both product types in each phase
that's why those phases are designed in that in that way. As Simmer mentioned we
also did want to have variation not only just amongst the the architecture
itself but colors and variation as well so this just shows that each of the two
product types has has has two different architectural styles and then four color
schemes each they are aren't the same color it's just those colors just show
different color schemes. We did want to be intentional about how we were
designing this and looking around the built environment that was around us to
be contextual to that. So kind of starting with this graphic kind of here
in the middle, the 2800 Mitchell Drive continuing care retirement community
that is approved but not yet built. That's about three to four stories along
Mitchell about 40 feet in height. It's about 39 units to the acre as you go
along to the eastern boundary, the remaining building 12 of the
Juana Creek Executive Park, three stories in height, about 35 feet. And then
obviously to our south is the Villa Monte Senior Living Facility, four stories
along Shadelands, 40 feet in height, about 50 units to the acre, and then the
Shadelands Sports Mall and the Shadelands Post-Acute Facility, 30 feet, 24 feet
respectively. In comparison, we're three stories in height, as we mentioned, 40
feet to the tops of our roof lines,
but that has a little bit of architectural variation
that's put in there.
They're actually a little under 30 feet
to the ceiling of the third level, which
is the highest living area.
But as you can also see, 19 units to the acres
are significantly less dense than the two residential projects
that are around us.
So we feel this is very appropriate for this area,
obviously a step up from the woodlands, which
to the east of Oak Grove Road, but significantly under what we have out there today.
That said, we knew we didn't have all the answers when we started this off, so we did
want to be cognizant and we want to incorporate community input where we could.
Starting off, we went to the Design Review Committee last June, June 2025.
One of the things they asked us to do was to look at our central open space, in particular,
there a way that we could better aggregate our open space to make it a
little more usable? What we mean by that is if you look at those these blue arrows
here, that shows where we were proposing our stormwater detention basins. Those
were basically on-grade stormwater detention basins and as you can see the
central lawn which is the light green in this in this image was a little chopped
up and they were saying well can you use an alternative stormwater treatment
system, which they're calling SilvaCells, which is a sub-grade storm water treatment
system, to better aggregate the central lawn and make it more usable.
So we looked into that, and as you can see here we were successful in doing that.
You can see that we now have a much better open space there, it's much more connected,
much more usable.
In addition, we're proposing a small children's playground there as well.
So we think this is a better plan.
And this is what we think it will look like once it's complete.
We also look for other opportunities to use this system, so we could have additional areas
where we could have usable open space.
So we identified these two areas.
The one on the left is on the west side of the site.
The one on the right is adjacent to the dog park on the eastern portion of the site.
And as you can see, we were able to make both of those areas a lot more usable, really expand
in the dog park, which we're very excited about.
But what we also were able to do because of this
was to introduce more trees.
The Silva cell system actually needs trees to work.
The roots of the trees actually interact and do
a lot of the stormwater treatment.
And that added about 32 more trees
from what we originally had before we went to the design
review committee.
So we were at least happy to be able to install more trees.
In addition, the Desire View Committee asked if we could focus a little more on pedestrian
connectivity, both through the site for folks that don't live within the proposed development,
and then for folks that live within development out to Oak Grove Road.
So what we were able to do is design a pathway that led out the eastern side of the development
through a, through a gate that will get you out to Oak Grove Road, and then we widened
the sidewalk along that central spine to make it a little more prominent, a little more
welcoming for folks from the general public.
So that's what you're seeing here, that sidewalk got to be about eight foot in width.
We also heard a comment on our architecture that for our N2 product, we had balconies
that were actually facing the interior alleyways that where cars come to go into the garages.
Question was, well, why can't those balconies face outward onto the streets of the Paseos?
We took a look at that and actually said, you know, that's not a bad idea.
And so what you see here is us incorporating that what you see at top is the before front
elevation where we did not have balconies and the bottom is the after front elevation
where we did incorporate those balconies and move them from the rear to the front.
So we think that was a good move and a good suggestion.
And I think it makes a better project.
In addition, as we all know, there
are a lot of comments around safety on Shadelands.
And so I think the panelists have spoken
about the raised crosswalk.
What we had been told is that the issue
was that it was difficult to make a left turn out
of that, out of the Villa Monte senior living community
driveway onto Shadelands because there
were pods of cars that were coming off of Oak Grove Road.
and there was no break in those pods
for them to make that left turn movement safely.
So what we did in response to that
was propose that raised crosswalk,
which will ideally slow those cars down,
so they'll have to really slow down
to get up over that crosswalk,
which will make that left turn a lot more easier
for folks to do to really create those breaks.
In addition, the roundabout was something
that obviously city staff was wanting to see
as part of the build out of the Shadelands Multimotor Plan.
So we, again, thought that that would make a better,
safer community.
So we agreed to do that.
In addition, bike lanes, this is what we would ordinarily
be required to put in just for a typical project.
That's just bike lanes on your project frontage.
But what we are doing is we are extending those bike lanes
on the north side of Shadelands all the way from Oak Grove
to North Wiggott, and then on south side of Shadelands
from Via Monte to North Wiggott.
And then on Mitchell, we're doing it
from our Western Project frontage
all the way to Oak Grove Road on both sides of the street.
So in addition to what those community benefits that I just
talked about, as Simmer mentioned,
we're doing a monetary contribution
for traffic enhancements at the Ignacio Valley and Via Monta
intersection, a monetary contribution
for traffic enhancement at the Oak Grove
Road and Contra Costa bike trail intersection. We don't want to get
involved in kind of the liability with that, so it's better that the city kind
of do that enhancement rather than have us do it and then a monetary
contribution for meeting islands where the Contra Costa bike trail meets Oak
Grove Road as well. So this is just a summary of all of the things that we've
done with the project as a hearing community input as well as community
benefits. I think it needs to be underscored we didn't have to necessarily
do any of these. There was no health and safety reasons for these. We were doing
these because we thought the project got better and we thought it would benefit
the surrounding community as well. Big reason why we didn't have to do these
is because as as is mentioned, we did a traffic study or the city did a traffic
study. It wasn't our traffic study and that traffic study has resulted as has
concluded that we have fewer trips than what is there today, and that's on a conservative
measure of 80% occupancy versus the 100% that we could have taken, but we did 80%.
But I understand that that doesn't necessarily comport with what people are seeing on this
on the street today.
But I do want to go through a quick timeline that we went through at Planning Commission,
as we all know, the COVID pandemic hit in 2020.
office park as well as many offices around the world emptied out but what
happened is this property was repurchased in 2022 and then the
application for this project was submitted shortly thereafter in 2023 our
former application was submitted in 2024 and then here we are today all this is to
say is that the current owner has just not because we've had this project on
file and we have been processing it the current owner for good reason has not
been looking to re-tenant the property.
And so somewhat ironically, because of this project, what people are seeing and are thinking
as a permanent condition certainly wouldn't be that way.
If this project were to go away, would it be denied, obviously the current order would
look to re-tenant as soon as possible.
What all has to say is that I think Shadelands has over the last 10 to 15 years really started
to re-make itself as a very diverse area.
They've introduced residential uses such as the VM onto senior living community and the and the 2800 Mitchell CC RC
They've with the orchard shopping center. They've introduced retail uses
There's residential serving uses like the Stradland Sports Mall other other, you know uses like Cali craft brewing
but we just believe this is a great place for housing for a project like this because
much like everybody else that lives there there are
Amenities here that these future owners will ideally get to utilize walk to
And they could be a very good benefit for for everybody
So tied to my schedule we've gone through that
You know we started this project again about two and a half years ago with our sp 330 submittal in October 23
Six months later came back with our formal application took about a year to get through all the city comments
And reviews and we did we did that in May of 2025
As I mentioned, went to the Desire View Committee in June of 2025.
The EIR was released in late summer.
As Simmer mentioned, it was a 90-day comment period, spent a lot of the end of 2025 responding
to public comments, went to planning commission in February of this year, got unanimous approval,
and here we are today.
So just to touch on some of the comments and of the appeals from the two appellants, for
The Friends of Walnut Creek, we talked about this,
the builder's remedy not applying.
You know, we had a city council study session
just April of last year, which discussed this topic.
It's been top, we discussed it many times.
The city attorneys then reaffirmed the applicability
of this project under the builder's remedy provision.
That was further emphasized by the Planning Commission.
And then we've had state laws such as AB 1886
that have really clearly stated and clarified
the assembly and the legislator's intent
that is the HCD, that is the determining factor
of when a housing element is substantially compliant.
Related to the city and living alternative,
again, all alternatives are not necessarily necessary
to be reviewed.
there are no significant impacts that that alternative identifies that aren't significant impacts from our project.
The proposal, obviously, as they mentioned, would significantly increase the density.
And it actually would constitute a denial of the builder's remedy project because it would exceed the 20% limitation we have under SB 330.
We've talked a lot about the EIR.
the EIR, well, first of all, LOS is not something that is needed to be studied under EIRs any
longer, but both VMT and LOS were studied as part of the project.
As Simmer mentioned, the traffic report was reviewed not only by an outside consultant
but was peer-reviewed by an outside consultant.
And again we don't have any, traffic was not shown as a significant impact from our project
in the EIR.
So we are not contributing to additional traffic trips as we've seen, and so it's just not
clear what the appellant was really trying to get out there.
For inadequate noticing, again they admit that it was noticed correctly.
The EAR, as I mentioned, was out for twice as long and is required, and we got a bunch
of comments from folks outside the noticing radius, so I think it's pretty hard to argue
people didn't know about this project.
About 60 letters we got from outside the noticing radius during that extended comment period.
For the VMRT residents, as I mentioned, we did meet with them after receiving their appeal
letter related to the eight-foot barrier, as we mentioned.
We will be putting in a green screen fence which will prevent dust from escaping the
site above and beyond best practices related to hazardous building materials.
We will be hiring a qualified consultant to do a survey of all remaining, if any remaining
asbestos and lead bed paint within the building.
We will then hire a qualified demolition contractor to remove that prior to the demolition of
the buildings.
It is worth noting that there's a lot of remediation
that has already been done within those buildings
just as a result of the tenant improvements
in a lot of the office suites.
So that obviously, since we didn't affect anybody
when that was done, but certainly we will follow
all rules and regulations.
We can't pull a building permit without showing
the evidence that we're hiring these qualified consultants
and contractors to do this work.
Related to tree preservation, again,
We studied and restudied.
Could we save additional trees?
We unfortunately were not able to.
That said, we are, as I said,
mentioned significantly increasing the tree canopy
from existing condition.
And we were able to find an ability
to increase the count by 32 trees
by implementing a different stormwater treatment system,
as I mentioned.
I also say that redwoods don't really thrive in this area.
They are a coastal tree.
They require a lot of water.
And so that was another reason why we proposed trees
like oaks and things that thrive better in a drier area
such as this is water creek.
Installation of air monitors.
Again, we are going to be following the best practices
related to around air quality.
I think a goat needs to be stated that all of the
individual units at the Via Monte Senior Facility
are equipped with MERV 13 filters,
which filter out 98 to 99% of all construction dust,
85 to 90% of all PM2 particulate matter.
There was a concumement health risk assessment that was done
as part of the EIR that said that the majority of the risk
actually came from nearby roadways, not our construction.
So we just think this is kind of misplaced.
We don't know exactly where these sensors would be picking
up these particulate matters.
They can pick up stuff far away as unfortunately
when Napa and Sonoma were having forest fires,
picking up particulate matter from the forest fighter so it's just something
that is really really hard to really pin down where these where this is where
these sensors are and what they're picking up is coming from. Right in right
out again as I mentioned what was articulated to us is that it was
difficult to make the left turn out of the Via Monte Senior Facility driveway
that was the reason why we did propose that raised crosswalk to deal with that
issue. Otherwise, we can't really understand why this is not similar just
to Shadelands and Wigot. It's basically a four-way uncontrolled intersection and
you think it's, you know, if you can manage that you should be able to manage
this. And weekly updates, again, we will have, you know, on the fence somebody you
can call for any issues. If they would like to, if the VMati folks would like to
nominate somebody to kind of interface with our superintendent, we'd be open to
that so they can give updates to their fellow community members, but again, we're going
with best practices with that as well.
So that's it.
We look forward to the discussion.
If you have any questions, we're certainly here and open to take any of those.
Thank you for your talk.
Thank you very much, Mr. Burns.
Does council have any questions at this time for the applicant?
Okay.
Then, we are going to take a, it's 835, let's take a break until 845 and we'll be back here
for public testimony right after that.
All right.
And we're back.
So note, if we can all note that the both the pellants and the applicant have had an
opportunity to speak and they will have an opportunity to address the council again at
to close the public testimony for rebuttal.
The order will be in reverse of the presentation
that we just heard so they each have an opportunity
to address the council first and last.
And I guess middle.
So before we start the public testimony,
just a couple of quick things.
Let me first ask, how many intend to speak?
Raise your hand.
Okay, quite a bit.
So, you will have up to two minutes to speak,
but let's also understand that everybody wants to,
we just, we have 17 cards.
If you haven't filled out a comment card yet,
please go to the back and fill out a comment card
and bring that up.
Everybody who wants to speak will have the chance to speak.
You don't have to take the full two minutes.
Just wanna make that clear.
If what somebody has said before you agree with,
you can say, I agree with what Bill said.
And I think we should do or not do,
whatever it is you're going to say.
You don't have to take the full two minutes.
When you, if you do take two minutes
and the red light blinks and you hear the tone,
I'm going to stop you then.
I'm not being rude.
We just have to give the same allowance to everybody.
If you take an extra 10 seconds,
everybody can take an extra 10 seconds,
so let's really keep to track on that.
You can see the time countdown for yourself.
Group spokespersons will have 10 minutes
if you are part of a group,
and no one else can speak from that group.
You are the lone speaker
if you are representing that group of 10.
So at Viamante, if you wanted to have one person
speak on all of that, that's fine.
You get your 10 minutes, nobody else can speak.
So that would be in lieu of any of the other members.
I'll ask you to identify yourself
if you are a group spokesperson
and to identify the group.
And of course, if you're an individual speaker,
please identify yourself.
You can mention where you live if you would like.
And then afterwards, when you are done,
if there are questions that come up
that the council want to refer to staff,
we may or may not ask questions at that point,
and then we'll go to the rebuttals.
I should have asked this before,
so let me just ask this right now of the council,
has anybody had any ex parte meetings
with anybody that's been involved in this particular item?
Yes, about, it must have been last August, I believe,
I had a meeting with the applicant
and their representative where they explained the project to me and provided general information.
It was probably around last August that I met with the applicant as well, and I also
met with Mr. Heller in the Via Monte Group, December, maybe was it December, January for
a meeting as well, just giving me their perspective. So I had each of those meetings.
And I had a meeting with the applicant, I believe it was in September. I just was looking
for an update on what community benefits they were including
in their proposal.
I had a meeting with the applicant in July, I think,
last year to get an update on the project,
particularly in post the DRC meeting.
Okay, great.
And I had a similar meeting
where they provided information to me about the project.
Okay, thank you.
And now, we will start the public comment portion.
What I will do, let's do this.
Let's start with the comment cards.
And I will call up five speakers,
and if you can line up against the wall,
we'll have the first person first,
and then every few people, I'll continue to do this.
So we can just get a continual rotation of speakers
and we'll cut down some of the time here.
No need to stack the deck on this one.
Okay, when I, council member Darling is telling me,
no cheering.
But it's a good point to bring up,
because there will be people that say things
that you want to hear, and there will be people that say
things that you don't want to hear.
We want to make everybody feel comfortable when they speak.
And so this is not a March Madness basketball game.
This is something where this is serious testimony.
We want to be able to have people feel comfortable
with what they say and not feel intimidated.
OK, when I call your name, please start to line up.
Steve Rothman, Sally Dougherty, Suzanne Rheingruber,
is it Ann Meyer, Ann Meyer and Dawn Mai, is that right?
Okay, so if you can line up along the side
and we will start with Steve Rothman.
Yes, thank you, I'm a resident of a Via Montli,
just so you know where I'm coming from.
As I say this, the builder's remedy is intended
to remove unessential and discretionary local
restrictions from a project which includes
affordable housing.
It is clearly not intended to prevent building codes
or other essential requirements or state rules
from being enforced.
Climate change and global warming are recognized
as significant concerns by the state of California,
as are initiatives to counter and reduce their effect.
Green space is an important issue for the state,
and there are many related state programs
to encourage and enable these efforts.
The existing Site for Mitchell Townhouse Project
currently includes many green zone attributes,
notably a large number of mature redwood trees,
and the builder is planning to cut down
almost every one of those trees and bulldoze
and level the entire site before starting construction.
The plans show some grassy areas as well as new small trees.
I believe at least several small groves of redwood trees
should be selected to remain,
to serve as the basis for a green zone,
to continue to benefit the neighborhood.
It's important to note that these magnificent trees
need their proximity of a grouping
to enable their root systems to support one another.
Just putting a handful of trees,
leaving a handful of individual trees
is not gonna accomplish anything,
those trees are gonna die.
I recognize that keeping these trees versus building on every square foot of the site
would marginally decrease the overall project profitability, but the project should still
be viable economically.
Thank you.
Next speaker.
You can just come in line.
I'm Suzanne Rheingruber.
Whoops.
I'm kind of short.
I'm Suzanne Rheingruber, I live in Viamante, and I'm here to ask you to please make sure
that the air quality would be good for all of us with older people and we have
problems I'm not even the worst one I have it's hard to say I have leukemia
which ruined my immune system I have asthma I live with an inhaler and
worst of all I was born and raised in Hungary and as a teenager I have
contacted tuberculosis. But I was fortunate. My uncle was an American physician. He sent
me the medicine but not before it had damaged my lung. I'm here before you having two tumors
on my lung and those little things what you called, I don't even remember what, will come.
It would demise me.
I'm a happily married woman, and I
would like to keep my marriage together as long as I can.
So please, I'm asking you.
No, I'm begging you to look at us as your parents
or grandparents, and make sure that our air is correct enough
for us to breathe in.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Ann Meyer from Viamante.
I just want to raise the issue of liability.
We have pointed out several things that could happen, especially around traffic and the
traffic circle.
If an ambulance is delayed because of that, who gets sued?
We know about these problems beforehand and we're not dealing with them.
And this really obviously bothers me.
It bothers me that in the name of Builders Misery, I call it Builders Misery, we're
We're making things unsafe for the people who are going to move in.
And we want housing for these people, but do we really want these little boxes?
Is that what they want?
They're so desperate, they'll take anything.
And this is what you're giving them, nothing.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm going to call up the next several speakers.
Please line up on the right.
asked for. Howard Gruber, Brianna Morales, Maddie Reagan, Stephen Black.
Thank you everybody. My name is Dongmei Iseksen. I come from 2010 to 2012, Oak Grove Drive.
I come here I want to talk. Please speak into the microphone. Okay. I come from 2010 to
2012, Oak Grove Drive, one creek.
We, I don't speak English well.
Okay.
We formally all proceed to the process,
project of 400 to 22 unit, three-story hometown.
Reason, for the reason, the project will bring
A lot of simple, unbearable, environment pollution
to excessive risk tenses in addition
to enough men's trial super noisy
from about supplemental 2000 cards.
The cards high-spiritually friction between tiles
and the cement route so forth products a lot of toxic dust.
This route, as met, advanced from months on toxic pollution
from tiles, zero E316 article.
the toxic that can flow anywhere,
follow down our house, our yard,
our various organs such as can go to our brain,
lung, blood, everywhere.
So this, I said in recent, who live this area,
could not avoid this.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm Howard Groover.
I'm a pediatrician and practiced 34 years in Berkeley.
And thereafter, was chief medical officer
at Children's Hospital in Oakland.
And besides that, did global medicine in Honduras.
In all these capacities, one of the first things
that we thought of is, how do we represent the children?
I noticed that you have an unrepresented constituency
here.
That is, the kids.
If you walk down, as my wife and I do, off in Mitchell Drive,
how many schools do you count?
Five or six.
Three of them have preschool children in them.
They're very small.
The reason that I passed this out
is I'd like you to look at the highlighted statement
in there, which fortuitously just came to me three days ago,
and noticed the needs that children have in order
to be protected by adequate air quality.
And so what I'm here to ask you is to take those children
into account as you look at the demolition project,
especially in the quality of the air.
And that's at the other side of the project, the Mitchell side.
So that totally is my message.
And I hope you take those children into account.
Thank you very much, Mr. Gruber.
Dr. Gruber.
Next speaker.
Good evening, Mayor Wilk and City Council members.
My name is Stephen Black.
I'm a resident of unincorporated Contra Costa
County in the Walnut Creek area, just over
by the Pleasant Hill Bart.
And I'm here tonight to express my support for the Mitchell Town
Homes Project because my neighbors and I
are being priced out of the region we call home.
As all of you know, the median home price
in Contra Costa County has more than doubled
in the last decade.
Ordinary people can't afford to live in areas where they work,
not because they've made bad decisions about their career
or education or anything like that,
but simply because we haven't built enough homes.
According to the California Department of Housing
and Community Development,
Walnut Creek needs to build 5,805 homes
in order to meet the regional housing needs assessment
requirement for the 2023 to 2031 cycle.
Despite this, the publicly available data right now shows that
the city has permitted just 85 units in the first two years of the cycle.
Now, I know that doesn't include the 2025 numbers yet,
but it clearly shows that we have a long way to go.
Regardless of what good intentions the appellate's here tonight may have,
every delayed project, every successful appeal,
every procedural obstacle keeps the city further from meeting the needs of
its residents and worsens the housing affordability crisis.
The Mitchell Townhomes Project embodies what
the state legislature intended when
it passed the Housing Accountability Act,
a meaningful number of homes with affordable units included,
built where people need to live.
The appeals before you tonight don't change
the environmental record or identify new evidence.
What they do is ask this council to use processes to
delay or deny housing that this region desperately needs.
I respectfully ask the city council to deny both appeals
tonight and demonstrate that Walnut Creek is part of the solution to the
housing affordability crisis. Thank you. Thank you, speaker. Hi my name is Bob
Asfor and I'm from Viamante. I'm going to take the time to just talk about
traffic. It has been stated and I'm gonna paraphrase just for saving time that
the number of current commuters will be replaced by future commuters. So instead
of driving in to Walnut Creek, they'll be driving out and that the traffic is going
to be minimally impacted, if not, get less. This is equivocally incorrect. We are not replacing
commuters with commuters. We are replacing commuters with 422 families. The commuters
that are driving into Walnut Creek now are driving in 240 days a year for a 9 to 5 job.
The 422 families are living in Walnut Creek 365 days a year, 24-7.
In addition, they will be getting mail six days a week plus the occasional Amazon package.
So what I'm saying is that here's some statistics.
The average California family is composed of three members, two of which have driver's
license and the family owns two cars.
What I'm saying is that the MTP project is going to triple the amount of people living
in Walnut Creek and increased by a factor of two and a half the amount, the number of
traffic.
This is just basic math.
The other thing I'm going to do is I'm going to throw this away and just back up and say
that I agree with what Mike Heller had said about traffic, and that's enough.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
the next group of names. Jan Warren, Susan LaVic, Alyssa Stone, Lisa Moore and Wendy
Taylor Tenelian. And Sally Doherty had given a card and she hasn't spoken yet. Okay. Thank
you. Yes. Good evening Mayor Wilk and council members.
My name is Brianna Morales and I am with the Housing Action Coalition. We are a member-supported
non-profit organization advocating for housing at all income levels across
California. And we're here tonight to strongly oppose the appeal and urge the
Council to uphold the Planning Commission's unanimous approval of the
422 homes that include in the Mitchell Drive project. This project repurposes
office buildings into high-quality family-sized homes in a walkable, job-
rich area with grocery stores, schools, transit right outside of the door. The
The affordability here is a stand out with 13% of the total project being reserved for
affordable housing, nearly double the city's standard requirement.
This is a meaningful commitment to ensuring families and essential workers can actually
stay in Walnut Creek.
Beyond the housing, we are encouraged by the neighborhood benefits, among them being two
acres of public open space and critical safety upgrades like the new roundabout and whited
sidewalks.
These are direct responses to neighbor feedback and they would make the area safer for everybody.
With the help of other organizations that want to see new homes here, like East Bay
for Everyone, we've had numerous letters of support being sent to you, the council, directly
from Walnut Creek residents stating that they're excited to see new homes and new life and
families and young kids.
If we're serious about addressing the housing crisis, it needs to start now in well-resourced
areas and more homes for families and affordable units for families.
Along with that, we also want to point out that there is a strict legal obligation to
approve this project because it meets all standards with no findings based on the grounds
of the appeals.
The Housing Accountability Act requires to deny the appeals and HCD has stated that they
are watching this project specifically so that we can align with state law.
So we really hope that we do not put this project at risk.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Well timed.
Good evening, Mayor Wilk, City Council members.
My name is Matt Regan.
I'm here representing the Bay Area Council, about 400 of the largest employers in the
region.
As the previous speaker said, no secret.
We are in the midst of a generational housing crisis in California.
The National Association of Realtors just published information that for the first time
in our nation's history the median age of a first-time home buyer crossed 40.
That's a collective failure that we all bear responsibility for. 40,000
Californians every single year leave this state and move to Texas. 40,000.
Again, collective failure of civic government in California to build
sufficient housing to meet our own population growth. Now you have in front
of you a project that I think meets all of the standards that have been set out
by the state in order to meet Housing Accountability Act and Builders' Remedy.
Your staff have made it very clear that these laws do apply to this project.
The, you know, the appeals I don't think pass even the most basic laugh test. The
checks in the mail we tried really hard to get it in on time. These have
already been tested in court and the state has made it very clear what
approved housing element constitutes. You have to have it in your hand stamped by
the by HCD as approved. If you do not have an approved housing element there
are certain things that kick in. You lose discretion. The state has said that our
response to the housing crisis is to take discretion away from bad actor
cities. So you will lose discretion. You will lose state funds for roads for
public safety. You could be liable for fines up to $60,000 per month per
unit that you do not approve. Litigation and attorney fees and punitive damages
if they find that you willfully ignore the advice of staff. And then finally
receivership, the state can come in and take complete control over your planning
and approval process. So be mindful of what's at stake here. Thank you. Thank you.
Good evening. I'm Susan Leavick, President and CEO of Joybound People and Pets here
in Walnut Creek, I want to share that I am genuinely excited about Mitchell Drive Town
Homes and the positive energy that we believe it will bring to our corner of the Sheilin's
community. For all of us at Joy Bound, this project isn't just a new development. It's
a rich infusion of life and activity and potential into an area that's been dormant for far too
too long.
So I'm kind of losing my voice.
I've been CEO at Joy Bound for about three and a half years
now.
And during that time, I have watched our organization
and community grow and evolve.
And yet we sit next to a vacant lot, the former JGI building,
and across the street from a huge office park.
That's mostly empty and lifeless.
And these underutilized spaces have long
felt out of sync with the vibrancy and optimism that
to find Joy Bound and the Shadelands
and all of Walnut Creek.
Our campus is a place where people come to connect
and give back and make a meaningful difference.
And the revitalization Mitchell Drive Town Homes
will bring aligns beautifully with that spirit.
Increased activity in the area
will not only strengthen the neighborhood,
but also deepen the rich sense of community.
We work hard at Joy Bound to foster every day.
and I will admit selfishly that I'm thrilled
about the potential for this community
to bring new volunteers and supporters
and neighbors to Joy Bound.
And because the more engaged our community becomes,
the more animals and families we will be able to serve.
So on behalf of Joy Bound's board of directors and staff
and volunteers and the tens of thousands
of pet families we serve,
Thank you for the opportunity to express my strong support
for Mitchell Drive Town Homes.
I'm confident that when, thank you, that'll do it.
Thank you.
Leaving a great meeting tonight, Kevin, thanks.
Thank you, John.
Jan Warren, Woodland's 40 years and when I moved here,
those buildings and those trees and everything about it
were here just like it is.
So I totally support this project.
I'm excited about it.
We have built a fair amount of senior housing.
There's the senior housing that we're working on
with the clinic hospital piece.
And so what we don't have is enough affordable housing
for younger families.
Some of those younger families, they get a bigger unit,
They may have a grandma or grandpa with them.
But I just, I think the developers done a good job
of listening and adapting and spending more money
to try and make everyone happy.
And it's just wonderful to see something new.
We've got the transportation, it's the infill
that the state has said you need to build,
we don't have enough housing, much less affordable.
so let's just approve it and move forward, thanks.
Thank you, Jan.
Good evening, my name is Wendy Taylor-Tinellian.
I serve as chief of staff at Joy Bound,
thus the dog hair on my jacket, and I apologize for that.
This summer marks nine years
that I will have been working in shade lands
across from the proposed Mitchell Drive townhouse site.
And I've had a front row seat to the pre-COVID traffic,
to the slump, and then also some generally exciting momentum
in the Shadelands community.
Relationships that strengthen our ties.
Providing housing for those desiring to invest in Shadelands
makes our entire community more resilient, joyful,
and inclusive.
I am so excited to see the lots across from Joybound
grow into bustling, loved, communal spaces.
We invest today to see growth in the future
for the benefit of us all.
We dearly look forward to welcoming new friends,
families, neighbors, and you in Shadelands,
our beloved neighborhood.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next speaker.
Good evening, Mayor Wilks and council members.
My name is Lisa Moore,
and I serve as the Chief Advancement Officer
at Joybound People and Pets here in Walnut Creek.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak
in support of the Mitchell Drive Town Homes Project
in the Shadelands.
This new project is the kind of thoughtful,
forward-looking development that strengthens Walnut Creek,
not just for today,
but for the future we are actively shaping.
Shadelands Walnut Creek is long been an important employment
and business hub.
This project helps it evolve into something
even more vibrant where people can live, work,
and contribute to the community
in a more connected and meaningful way.
At its core, this development is about people.
It creates more accessible and attainable housing options
for families and individuals
who want to be part of Walnut Creek,
including those who already work here
but currently cannot afford to live here.
When people can live closer to where they work,
we reduce long commutes.
We support more sustainable and walkable communities.
That is good for our environment
and it is good for quality of life.
There are also other clear economic benefits.
New housing brings new customers to local businesses,
supports a stronger local workforce
and contributes to the long-term vitality of Shadelands,
but also of Alabona Creek.
A more balanced community where residential
and commercial uses compliment each other
is one that remains resilient and competitive over time.
Of course, any construction projects of this scale
comes with temporary challenges,
but those are just that, temporary.
The long-term benefits of increased housing,
economic activity, and community vibrancy
will far outweigh the short-term disruptions.
This project represents an investment
in Walnut Creek's future,
one that supports families and strengthens our local economy.
I respectfully encourage you
to support the Mitchell Drive Town Home Project
and I thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you.
Next speaker.
And I wanna go work for Joy Bound.
Good evening, I'm Donna Colombo
and I am an advocate for homeless services
and affordable housing.
And having worked for 15 plus years,
trying to help people find housing,
I can speak firsthand
about the importance of a project like this.
We've been waiting for it for a long, long time.
Having worked on two developments,
St. Paul's Commons and the micro homes
at Grace Presbyterian, I can speak with confidence
about the seriousness and the thoughtfulness
of the design, planning, commissions,
housing and development staff,
city council and legal services.
Fully confident that everything has been reviewed
and reviewed and reviewed.
I can also speak firsthand about the reasons that people oppose such developments.
We always hear fears about increased traffic, congestion, air quality, access to emergency
services and sometimes those fears can blur the benefits of such developments.
Benefits like developer improvements, support for local businesses, housing for people that
work in our local businesses, like Joy Emer...
I don't work there, by the way.
I've read the reports and responses to issues raised by the appeals and it
seems there are comprehensive mitigation plans for the issues raised it seems the
developer is willing to work with everyone. I sincerely hope that this
development will be approved. We need more housing in our community especially
affordable housing. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening mayor, council
members. My name is Mark Orcutt. I'm the president and CEO of the East Bay
Leadership Council. EBLC supports this project because it met a high bar to our
standards. We don't support every proposal but this one transforms an
underutilized office site into housing along a major corridor in a location
with strong access to jobs and opportunity. From a regional economic
standpoint, housing supply is directly tied to our ability to attract and
retain talent, support local businesses,
and maintain a strong and competitive economy.
We understand there are strong opinions
about how this project came forward.
The builder's remedy process has generated important debate
and will continue to generate that same debate.
But EBLC evaluated this project on its merits,
including density, affordability, adaptive reuse,
economic and equity impact, and sustainability.
In our mind, it's a good project.
traffic concerns along Ignacio Valley Road
are understandable.
The environmental review found the transportation impacts
would be less than significant,
and I believe that analysis is strong.
It's also expected to generate fewer peak hour trips
than the existing office use.
I know a recent speaker also brought up state law,
but I'll emphasize state law also shapes
this decision before you.
Denying a project like this carries significant legal
financial risks, courts have consistently sided with applicants in cities like San
Mateo, Huntington Beach, and others when certain standards are not met.
So for those reasons, EBLC supports this project, encourages you to deny the appeal, move forward
with necessary approvals consistent with staff recommendations and state law.
Thank you very much.
A quick question.
say East Bay Leadership Council do you mean you as executive director or was
I represent the organization the East Bay Leadership Council is there a vote
they reviewed it yes we have it we have a process a public process that we
announced about a year and a half ago for how we're gonna begin reviewing
projects that come before us a special committee that reviews that a set of
criteria that are made publicly available and then we we move forward
with communicating that position accordingly.
One or two people, 20 people, how many roughly?
Our committee, I would say, was around seven folks from our membership, strategically chosen
with insights into development.
Thank you.
A subcommittee of our Infrastructure Task Force.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And if there's anybody else that wants to speak that hasn't yet, please line up against
the wall, because after the-otherwise, this will be the last speaker.
Best for last. I'm just kidding.
Good evening, Mayor and City Council members. Thanks for allowing me to speak.
My name is Jason Lester. I'm the business agent for the Plumbers and
Steamfitters Local 159 in Martinez, but I'm here representing
over 150 Walnut Creek households who belong to the plumbers,
the electricians, the sprinkler fitters, and sheet metal unions.
We've got a few thousand members here in Contra Costa County.
For the last 30 years, we've worked to support projects that promote
sustainability and equity. We're the first trade organization in the nation
to support account the county's urban growth boundary to help encourage
developments like the one in front of you tonight. We've partnered with
developers like Signature Development to gain approvals and build over 60,000
housing units in this county. With that history it's no surprise that we're here
tonight asking you to support this project. We appreciate that Signature
development has taken the time to hear and be responsive to the concerns
brought by the project's neighbors. For example, they've made an open, made the
open space in the project more usable. It'll improve, they'll improve the
safety of Shadelands and have made architectural changes requested by the
public. This is the right project in the right place and we can only address our
housing crisis if we use underperforming sites like this one to create
opportunities for homeownership. Thank you for your time here allowing me to
speak. We hope that you approve tonight. Thanks. Thanks for coming. Last chance.
Three, two, one. Okay, we're gonna close the public testimony portion and let me
first ask if council has any questions or has asked staff to respond to any
questions that were raised. Councilmember Darling. And thank you and thank you for
everybody who spoke here tonight. This is one of those issues that we really think
it's important for us to take the time to get through it. I wanted to ask our
council a question. There has been some discussion about whether or not this is
a project that is subject to the builder's remedy. Have you looked at that
issue and have you concluded? Yeah, our office has looked at that and we've
concluded that the project is subject to a builder's remedy under current
California law. Thank you. Any further questions to staff regarding public
comments? So either to staff or our CEQA consultant I'm imagining they're here. If
someone could succinctly summarize, I know it's a difficult, the the mitigation
measures primarily related to construction activities, air quality, noise, and asbestos.
It's common to those of us who are land use lawyers, but just to provide some explanation
of what those are and how those are regulated by the state and other agencies and what they're
intended to do.
Yes.
My name's Jackie Winkel.
I'm a senior air quality scientist with First Carbon Solutions.
conducted the environmental analysis for the EIR so I'd be happy to address your
questions. The mitigation measures related to air quality include the
standardized best management practices to control fugitive dust that is
recommended by the Bay Area Air District and the Bay Area Air District is the
public agency that is in charge of regulating air quality throughout the
nine-county Bay Area and it is their view that they summarize in their CEQA
guidelines that implementation of best management practices is sufficient to reduce fugitive
dust emissions to a less than significant level.
So they actually don't recommend or require modeling of fugitive dust if those measures
are implemented.
So the project will be implementing those measures.
It includes actions like watering multiple times per day throughout construction, covering
loose soil piles and covering trucks hauling material in and out, limiting vehicle speeds
to reduce dust, kick up, other actions of that nature.
The second mitigation measure that will be imposed as a requirement on this project includes
the use of Tier 4 construction equipment on all equipment greater than 50 horsepower.
Year four construction equipment reduces PM 2.5 emissions by more than 90%.
And the reason why that mitigation measure is being imposed is because as part of the
analysis, we modeled the construction related emissions and associated health risks, assuming
that the construction equipment would be representative of a statewide fleet average, so equipment
of various ages.
And that analysis, which was conducted pursuant to Bay Area Air District Guidance and Methodologies,
found that the potential health risks would exceed the health-based thresholds established
by the air district.
So we then remodeled the construction-related emissions and potential impacts with the use
of that tier four equipment.
And that analysis found that emissions and health risks would be sufficiently reduced
well below those health based risk thresholds.
Regarding the additional mitigation measures, does anyone have the MMRP?
Asbestos is not part of the mitigation but it is a requirement that every demolition
project throughout the nine county Bay Area must receive what's called a J permit from
the Bay Area Air District to test for asbestos and then follow protocol if asbestos is detected.
So it's not required as mitigation
because it is a regulatory requirement.
And did you have an additional question?
Just maybe, just a little bit of elaboration on that then.
So in order to remove materials that have asbestos
or lead in them, the developer actually has to get
a special permit from the air quality district
and it's regulated pursuant to state standards
in terms of what equipment the construction workers
have to have on, how they remove it,
how that it's not blowing in the wind
and in the atmosphere, it's regulated.
That's exactly right, it's very closely regulated,
so every demolition project,
even tiny demolition projects in the Bay Area
must obtain a permit that demonstrates
that they've tested for asbestos
and if asbestos is detected,
then there's a whole range of procedures
that need to be followed.
And the Air District has enforcement officers
that enforce this.
And then briefly, construction noise,
there's limits on hours and then use of
buffling equipment and things like that
that are standard for construction noise impacts?
That's exactly right.
The standardized noise mitigation would be imposed.
During construction, the project applicant
shall implement the following mitigation measures,
which includes exactly mufflers
on internal combustion engines,
limiting idling, quiet models of air compressors,
during all times during project construction and grading,
the project applicant shall face
stationary noise generating equipment
as far as is practicable from sensitive receptors,
and the construction contractor shall comply
with the city's municipal code
as it relates to construction noise.
Thank you.
Very succinct.
That was a follow up question for you.
The mitigation measures that you said
are the standard measures when imposed
then reduce the pollutants to a non-sedificant level, right?
Are there, and you did address that the equipment
as originally proposed would exceed the parts,
the particular matter or the thresholds,
and so you changed that.
Would there be anything else with this project
that would cause you to want to use the equipment
impose additional mitigation measures.
It sounded like there was kind of a one size fits all
that you just apply to every project.
Or do you look at the project specifically
and say this is what's going on with this project
and so the standard measures may or may not be appropriate.
Yes, so for this project,
the driver of the health risks was PM 2.5
and so tier four equipment will reduce PM 2.5.
So, typically, if we'll see an impact from air quality,
we will look at what's driving that impact.
What's the source of emissions that's causing that?
And in this case, it was PM 2.5,
so tier four equipment will significantly
reduce those emissions.
So, it was appropriate to apply in this case.
Remember, no other concerns that you had
specific to this project?
No, that mitigation reduced the health risks
to well below the threshold.
The thresholds are 10 in a million,
and with mitigation, the health risks
were found to be five in a million.
So it wasn't approaching the threshold.
It was well below with that mitigation.
And you said that, or I'm not sure if you said this,
but the report stated that the roadways contributed
more to the particulate matter than the project.
Can you elaborate on what that finding was?
Yes, so we also will analyze what existing sources
pollution are within a thousand feet of the project site in addition to the
project construction emissions. So cumulatively when accounting for roadway
emissions and nearby stationary sources which are a handful of diesel generators
in the neighborhood nearby the cumulative health risks are around 50
in a million and the cumulative threshold is 100 in a million and the
the project is contributing about five in a million
from the construction.
So below individual thresholds,
below cumulative thresholds,
and you're exactly right that the driver
of that cumulative impact is not the construction,
it's what's existing.
And I was gonna ask staff,
but maybe you're the right person to ask.
We discussed the netting that's gonna go up on,
or potentially going to go up on the chain link fence.
Are there different grades of netting?
there was a concern that if a cheap netting went up
that it wouldn't really capture the dust
and it would break down.
Are there recommendations from dust and particulate matter
as far as like what's the appropriate barrier
to put on a chain-link fence?
Well, this is going above and beyond
what's being required in the mitigation.
So I think it looks like what the applicant is proposing
is sufficient to provide an additive benefit.
Logic would say that a more plastic barrier, I think,
would work better.
But I hesitate to opine on it, obviously,
because it's above and beyond what.
No, I'm not asking you to recommend it
as a mitigative measure.
I was just asking you to give your professional opinion
about what types of material would
be best suited for the application of going
onto a chain link fence.
So non-porous material would be the most suitable
to capture those tiny particles.
So even netting that's able to pass,
small particles are able to pass through
would be less effective than, you know,
like a solid plastic, for example.
Okay.
I just wanna be cognizant that we are right now
responding to the comments made by the public for staff,
and I feel some of these comments might be bleeding into
our actual questions for staff
once the full public rebuttal, once the rebuttals are over.
Well, I was trying to address that.
It seemed like a vast majority of the public comments
were specific to air quality.
So that's why I was using this time to discuss that.
No, I mean, as long as there's still along that track,
I just want to be cognizant of that.
Yeah, OK.
During the course of a project, do you typically monitor,
Like, how would one know if the conditions suddenly changed?
And the particulate matter or the dust or emissions
from a project all of a sudden spiked or exceeded
what was anticipated?
How was that normally handled?
Well, we model potential emissions and impacts
following Bay Area Air District
and California Air Resources Board's guidance
and recommendations and the tools that they recommend,
monitoring is not recommended by the air district
as mitigation or as a methodology
for assessing impacts at this time,
so all of the potential scenarios are modeled.
So we're projecting five parts per million,
But if all of a sudden it was 50 parts per million,
we wouldn't know that.
Correct.
OK.
And the same standards, because there
was a comment about making sure that we
are addressed the concerns of children.
Are there specific standards that
apply to construction sites near kids,
or is it the same it applies to adults and kids?
We go by the same health guidance.
That's a good question.
And so that's addressed in the modeling as well.
So when analyzing health risks of nearby sensitive receptors
or people, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment provides recommended methodology, which is also
recommended by the Bay Area Air District,
and how to assess the potential health
risks of different groups of sensitive receptors.
And so a risk factor of 10 is applied to infants
and very young children to reflect
that their lungs and their bodies are still developing,
and to also reflect that they have higher breathing rates,
and so they have a higher dose.
So that is the methodology that we followed
for this project, and so, in fact,
the preschool that's nearby,
the health risk to those children
was assessed in that manner.
Thank you.
Okay, that's the, okay, terrific, thank you very much.
All right, so our next step in this are the rebuttals.
And so the applicant will have 10 minutes total
to address any issues you might have heard.
You'll have up to 10 minutes.
I should say you don't have to take all 10,
but please come on up.
And the second rebuttal, or I should say the first rebuttal,
but the second person to speak
will be Mike Heller in your group.
And then the last of the speakers would be the rebuttal
of the Friends of Walnut Creek.
Welcome back.
Thank you, I'll actually be quick.
I don't really have any rebuttals
other than what I stated in my presentation.
I didn't hear anything really from the public comment
that was new, so I will cede my time back.
Thank you very much.
Mike Heller, rebuttal on, you'll have five minutes.
I need to first make a correction.
Some of the ladies in the audience said,
I said the median age was 68, it's actually 86.
They thought I was taking years off their life, so.
At least you're not 86.
In the interest of full clarity and everything here,
I think from some of the comments,
three key points I want to make.
Housing is good.
Let's do some housing.
Second, the risk assessments.
We just heard something about the special attention given
children, how about us seniors right across the street? Where is the special attention there?
Second thing, there was discussion earlier, applicant mentioned that we have MERV 13 air
filters in our apartments. That's all very true. That isn't the question. As long as everybody
stays in their apartment, they can hide under the bed, whatever. Fine. What if they want to
to take a walk around the building.
How do we know is it a good thing to do,
or maybe they should not?
We have a lot of activities.
We have courtyards that have trees,
bocce court, miniature golf, et cetera.
When should we dare use them, or when should we not schedule
that sort of thing?
So having a contact for information is excellent.
What we need is advance notice or we can't schedule anything.
We don't know without advance notice.
The answer would be everybody needs to stay inside
until we can assure you that all is well.
So for the driveway, our concern is certainly
left turns coming out of our driveway,
but it's right turns as well if we have a problem getting out.
the other half of that is can the ambulance get to us?
So there's some review by the fire department
and police and so on.
Those are using like citywide average response times,
what have you.
I bet you Viamonti uses more ambulances per month
than your neighborhood does, just to guess.
So that's what we're worried about.
It's peak traffic, backups on the street, et cetera.
So that causes a problem.
The monitors that we have found and think would work well
have no fans in them.
They're not gathering air.
They're only assessing the air that
drifts in their little intake screen.
So again, the key here is these are outside air measurements.
It has nothing to do with the air inside our apartments,
but rather what's happening on the street,
on the path around our building.
Dare we take a walk?
So a lot of the things that we have suggested
would be helped by advanced knowledge of the activities.
So we are supportive of housing, excuse me,
but we're worried that the sensitive receptors
right across the street are being lost
in big models that deal with average circumstances.
We're not the average circumstances.
We are likely more fragile, more vulnerable, et cetera.
So we don't want to deny the project at all.
We want you to consider how can you add some conditions
that would help some of our concerns be addressed.
So thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Heller, which brings us
to Appellant number one's rebuttal,
Friends of Walnut Creek, Steve Elster,
and you'll have five minutes.
Thank you, I just have a few comments.
The most efficient and least environmentally impactful way to increase the housing inventory
are senior living centers.
When folks move into a senior living center, they're leaving behind an existing home in
most instances and therefore just organically increasing the housing inventory to live collectively.
So because of this, senior living centers actually create housing inventory on a scale
much beyond that of new developments of town homes or homes.
There are some number of mentions of the results of the traffic study that supposedly the congestion
that would be generated, the traffic that would be generated from this project would
actually be reduced.
I did want to point out again that the traffic study was based, we believe, on an incorrect
IT code to quantify the traffic generated by the existing office park.
And then lastly, in terms of the builder's remedy, as you all know, the builder's remedy
essentially ties your hands and keeps you from functioning in a way that you're elected
to by your voters and by the city to do to weigh in on developments such as this.
And for that reason, it's not something that should be taken lightly.
Thank you.
Thank you, Steve.
Okay.
With that, I'm going to close the public hearing portion, and we're going to have council questions
and deliberations.
Now, these questions may be directed at staff.
They can be directed at the applicant, or they can be directed at either of the rebuttals
or, I'm sorry, at the appellants.
So knowing that we all probably have a number of different questions, what I'd like to do
rather than have one person take up the next 30 or 40 minutes with their questions, let's
have each council member limit to 10 minutes at first for questions.
If you have under 10 minutes, great.
But at 10 minutes, and then we'll make sure everybody has their questions.
And then if there's further questions after that, we'll go back and we'll do that again
if we need to.
Can I make a suggestion that builds on that?
how about the first person pick a topic and we the rest of us chime in if we are in the
same topic area and then the next person can suggest a topic otherwise we're gonna have
consultants bouncing up and down that makes sense if people are okay with that that's
fine I would second that's fine suggestion makes sense to go first with traffic go right
ahead because you're taking notes come on is it okay if the consultant comes on down
I assume you're, actually I've watched the Planning Commission meeting and I believe
I saw you there on TV.
So let's start with the ITE code and why is the one that you, first of all, would you
like to introduce yourself?
Good evening, I'm Mark Spencer, I'm a senior principal and president of W-Trans, primary
author for the traffic study, which we prepared in conjunction with First Carbon on behalf
of the city for this work.
I'll address the questions as they come up in order.
With respect to the ITE land use code.
The land use code we used in a trip generation manual, which is where we get trip rates from.
There's different land uses listed.
Office park is one, office is another, different types of housing and so forth.
The reason we don't use office park, and hardly ever use office park, is all the survey data
that goes into making trip generation rates leads to what that rate might be.
Office park has very few surveys, there's only five.
Office in general office has over 100 surveys.
So in and of itself we're like, okay, there's not a lot of survey data to back up what the
published rate is.
But more to the point is the definition of office park includes other ancillary uses,
a bank, a restaurant, a gym, daycare, something like that.
All of those which don't exist in this particular environment.
So while it may look like an office park, it behaves like general office.
Thus, the recommended practice is to look at what the actual use is and go with an obvious
answer that says, well, senior housing from a traffic perspective is going to be less
of an impact.
Now, we get into these conversations about what's an impact under CEQA versus just what's
an operational effect of traffic, okay?
It may not rise to the CEQA level of a significant impact.
And a lot of the things we have in our report don't do that.
It doesn't mean there's not going to be traffic or that it won't be noticeable, that we have
to, let's, you know, maybe there's, we got to look at these left turns or traffic circles,
sidewalks and so forth.
There are traffic effects that we need to look at, even if they're not technically part
of CEQA impact definition.
And that nuance gets, that gets blurred, and we admit that, okay.
But senior housing doesn't necessarily generate, in this particular case, because of the number
of units, it can wind up generating as many trips on a daily basis.
Which means from an air quality perspective, you still have vehicles moving in and out.
So it's similar in its land use to what's across the street at Viamante, absolutely.
But you'd have a lot more units, and therefore it's not quite an apples-to-apples comparison.
Does residential traffic analysis consider the mail, the deliveries from Amazon, the
gardener that comes in, is that all included in the traffic?
It's all included deliveries, mail, Amazon, Uber Eats, your grub hub, whatever you might
use, all the trip purposes, similar to an office building includes deliveries, visitors,
a medical office would include staff and all of that, I'll keep it moving, I'm sorry.
No, no, no. I was going and all the patients coming in. Oh and all the patients going in
I know, you know, you asked to be succinct earlier and you asked the wrong guy to the mic. So
Let me let me follow up on that for a minute as well. So we've talked about generalities when it comes to the traffic
there there's no question that there is traffic that comes into business areas and offices and there's
traffic that happens that emanates from senior housing as well as
regular market rate housing like we're talking about here have did you study it based upon the time of day
Specifically from about 7 30 a.m. To 9 30 a.m
Going westbound on Ignacio and going eastbound on Ignacio from 330 p.m. To 6 p.m
Yes, the the changes in traffic patterns and directionality
We're very much part of this and you're right with an office development. That's there now
you have a lot of inbound traffic in the morning, outbound in the afternoon. And
Pete, let's be clear, we're talking inbound from 680 and from that side and
outbound back, you know, towards the west. When you have residential, you have a
reverse situation. So the traffic patterns do change. The traffic
operations report talks about that specifically and in detail. The chip
generation table shows that in terms of the pluses and minuses on how that
changes in terms of what goes up and what goes down. So we might have a net
reduction, but there is a change in pattern, and that's part of the analysis, and that
was very much considered.
So I'm having trouble, so I live there, I live right there, not within the sphere specifically
at where Via Monti is and where the project is, but I live across Ignacio.
So every single day I'm driving down Ignacio.
And if I go downtown from Oak Grove and Ignacio between 8 and 9 a.m., the traffic is often
backed up from Villa Monte.
It's always backed up from Bancroft.
And it takes me at least 20, sometimes 30 minutes to get downtown.
There are occasions when I happen to be downtown already at 8 a.m.
I'll drive back home, and I'm home in 10 minutes.
So are we saying that adding 400 to 800 cars a day, which
is assuming that every home has one car and maybe two,
that are going downtown is not going
to add to that congestion in the morning?
When there's also school commute traffic too.
Right.
That's not what the report says, though.
What the report says is we're going to take out the office
and those trips and the directionality which are off peak,
okay, coming to an office on that side of town.
We're gonna add in residential which will be contributing
to the very movements you're talking about
in the morning and in the afternoon.
And what's the effect of that?
What's the effect of that on the corridor,
on Agnesio Valley in terms of its delay index?
What's the effect at individual intersections?
What's the effect on the queues at turning
different intersections during those times.
We're not saying it's not going to have an effect and it's not going to change the congestion
levels that are out there.
We're saying that it doesn't rise to the level of a significant impact.
All of those homes, and you've got 420 or so homes being, they don't all leave at exactly
the same time.
There's a bit of a spread in the morning and spread in the afternoon.
So while there is a morning commute and an afternoon commute, there is some distribution
and some spreading of that.
it all doesn't happen at once,
it gets absorbed within the traffic that's there.
That means you would see incremental changes
as a result of the project.
Not enough to rise to the level of significant impact,
but it's an incremental change in traffic.
And that's been acknowledged and that's talked about
in the Traffic Operations Report and in the CEQA Report.
It seems that we're giving it short shrift,
but I can tell you from my own personal experience
that that is very much something that would be,
if not highly significant, moderately significant.
Wait, isn't there a definition of that?
Well, there's a definition of significant under CEQA.
And again, it's part of that splitting hairs.
Whether you use the word significant
or is it going to be noticeable?
It's going to be a pretty small change,
given how much volume of traffic is already on Ignacio Valley.
But it is an increase, absolutely.
Is it going to be something where you're going to say,
wow, this is now taking me an extra 10 minutes
to get downtown or something?
No, it's not at that level.
Ignacio Valley carries a lot of traffic now.
You may argue about whether it carries it efficiently
or not.
Generally, it really does because of the volume
and how much is actually moving through that corridor.
But if you're driving it every day, yes, you do feel that
and you have that effect.
And sometimes you may decide, well,
I'm going to go a little bit earlier
and try and beat the traffic.
Or if I can go a little later or whatever it might be,
that's the reality of how the traffic works now.
And it's been that way for quite some time.
It's very directional oriented.
but in terms of what's a significant impact under CEQA
versus an operational effect, there are differences.
So let's say, now we're talking about the feeder roads.
Shadelands on Oak Grove, Wiggett, Viamante,
even Mitchell onto Oak Grove,
those course go on to Wiggett and Viamante,
well, some of them go on to Viamante as well.
So these are all roads that are typically lightly traveled,
Although during commute times they are more heavily traveled.
And I agree, not everybody is seeing the 8 a.m., time to leave, it's going to be spread
out over maybe an hour.
But you're talking about hundreds of cars being spread out over an hour.
Did we study what the impact on those current feeder roads are?
Yes.
So in the traffic operations report, we talk about not just the operational level of service
and delay at those intersections, things that used to be under CEQA but now are under operational
effects, but also the length of the queue in terms of which is, you know, how many vehicles
are waiting to make a left or a right turn at each of those intersections during those
peak times and whether or not those pockets can accommodate the additional traffic or
the change in traffic patterns that are occurring as a result of what the project's net change
would be.
That was all studied and vetted.
Okay.
Those are my questions for right now.
So I just had a few follow-ups and two in terms of you looked at the access points and
potential for conflicts with neighboring developments?
With the driveways across the street and other, yes.
And so in your professional opinion is there a conflict or an issue there that has not
been addressed or mitigated?
No, no.
It's been addressed.
The circle and the raised crosswalks are something that has a very positive effect for traffic
calming, slowing things down, making things safer.
The issue of emergency response is addressed in the traffic operations report as well.
That's obviously something that's very much in the forefront of all of this discussion.
We knew that from the get-go when we started this process.
That doesn't rise to the surface of where there would be a change in that response time.
That went through fire and police review as well.
looked at a lot of those things and feel pretty confident that this is going to
work even with the proposed changes on shade lens where there's there's bike
lane improvements and there's other things that are part of the multi-modal
plan this project fits well with that.
I may be asking the same question but first I wanted to ask um it was
mentioned earlier that these are not you know just units they're families and so
the average being two driver's licenses two cars what did you use to estimate
the driving age occupancy a number of cars in this development sure we get
this question quite a bit because if you start to think how do we reason out how
How many cars are going to be associated with the development, and generally that's not
how it's estimated.
What we look at is if you take a number of units, strictly here's a number of town home
units, and there's a mixture of bedroom sizes and so forth, the surveys that are done to
develop the trip rates take into consideration the occupancy of those units, how many people
live there, how many are adults, how many are children, how many own cars in this type
of environment and then that becomes the trip rate.
They all include like a trip rate that includes all of the different trip types that are made
by a family over the course of the day, a journey to work, dropping the kid off at school,
going to soccer practice in the afternoon, running an errand and so on.
That's how you build up the number of trips on a daily basis and on a peak hour basis.
If you start thinking about how many people are occupying the units or strictly how many
bedrooms, the math doesn't necessarily correspond to how many vehicles you actually see moving
in and out of developments.
It doesn't line up that way in practice.
And there have been surveys that kind of try and compare that and say, what's the best
unit of measurement?
What would you say is the unit that you would look at?
And it happens to be just strictly a number of units in the surveys themselves and the
unit type, okay?
In this case, we're looking at townhomes.
There's a distinction of difference between townhomes,
single-family homes, single-family detached,
single-family attached, and so on.
So when you look at the product type,
that tracks the best when you actually measure it
against the number of trips moving in and out of a site.
OK.
So it sounds like you've got a formula to sort that out.
It wasn't just.
Yeah.
This is something at the ITE level
we've debated quite a bit and giving guidance
to practitioners.
And so that's been vetted pretty well.
What does ITE stand for?
Sorry.
You know, if you're a lawyer, you have the ABA and medicine,
you have the ABA.
So Institute of Transportation Engineers
is our professional organization.
It's of the same level, by the way,
as Bar Association and IT.
Conferences are more fun, but it's who we are.
But they produce manuals that say,
here's a trip generation rate manual.
It's kind of like Harry Potter for us,
Like, when we read it, it's like, this is gold, man.
And there's all sorts of manuals like that.
And I say it jokingly because it's late
and we're a little punchy.
But, in fairness, within my career,
and I've been doing this for about 35, 36 years,
I've been fortunate enough to be part of ITE
and served on the ITE International Board.
And I've been part of review committees.
So this is something that I've gone to the conferences,
I've spoken about.
So I actually know this material pretty well.
Thank you.
And then my question is about the right no left hand
turns, I think it was.
Help me understand this intersection
that we're discussing because I'm
thinking this is applying to the intersection that
has the roundabout, in which case
that issue would be mitigated.
So where is this where we're saying right in, right out,
and no right turn?
I'm gonna ask Matt Redman to come up and discuss this this much of a policy and geometric issue
That's the eastern driveway though. It's not the one with the circle
Hello good evening
Ten o'clock. My name is Matt Redman traffic engineer for City of Wanna Creek and yeah, this is this issue with the
Right in right out for the easterly driveway that was brought up
This can work
So I think overhead that shows where this particular driveway is
Yeah, so this intersection right here is via Monte coming into shade Lynch Drive and this would be the roundabout
So this is not where the left the right in right out would be. So we're talking a little further down
You see that pedestrian crossing sign on the right there?
That is going to be a raised crosswalk
In which case it's like a speed table
So you have to slow down to you know, 10 10 15 miles per hour to cross and then I believe it's
Just before that so so it's much further down is the actual crosswalk
Look for the site plan with the trees on it. There is a crosswalk way back here in the back of the picture there
And there's a driveway
from Biomante on
think the near side of that crosswalk and there is a proposed ingress egress
driveway on the project site that will be also on the near side the near side
of that crosswalk that is the driveway in question where this I can't picture
Do we have an overhead?
Yeah, could we pull that?
Oh, let's see.
Let's see.
This is the presentation we didn't see.
You could have done it from that blue and green.
OK.
So here we have a site plan, the roundabout down here
on Shea Lynch Drive.
Yeah, I know.
So this is the roundabout just to orient.
And we are shifting to the east with this raised crosswalk.
And this is the driveway.
So with this driveway, they are proposing a right in
and a right out only.
And you would not be able to take a left here in
or a left out.
And they're saying due to traffic congestion,
it's not an ideal maneuver.
And that's based on their experience
coming out of Villa Monte, as far as I understand.
And they are the Villa Monte residents?
I believe so.
And so in my opinion, I don't see any traffic safety issues
with a left turn in or a left turn out
under regular conditions.
And typically, what we're looking for there are sight lines.
So we're looking to make sure that you can view the traffic
coming from a reasonable distance,
and you can safely make your turn.
Now I realize with congestion, it may be harder to navigate.
However, again, sight lines are okay.
There's nothing being obstructed.
There's not like a wall or something.
And so in my opinion, I would like to not allow that
and leave it free access, right in, left in, left out,
anything allowed as it is all across the street.
So Matt, can I ask what in your opinion,
what would justify a right in, right out restriction?
Typically, if you had a high wall
where you couldn't really see out,
or if, you know, if there was a big median
that was kind of blocking the view to see out there,
yeah, it would be a bigger obstruction.
Or like, think about like a bus shelter
that's just right as you're coming
and you wanna make a left out, you have to look right.
And if there was a big bus shelter there
or some obstruction,
I'm thinking like a big retaining wall or something.
Then you wouldn't be able to see out
and maybe that left turn,
you don't have enough decision time to make that left turn.
And again, this is, we're adding that raised crosswalk.
That's slowing speeds down.
That increases time to make that decision
to make your left turn.
And it makes it, it improves the safety.
And Matt, have we done a speed study on Shadelands?
believe Shadelands Drive does have a speed survey done and it's posted at 25
now and I believe that that is the speed survey I haven't checked that but the
because when I know when I do go there I have my doctor's offices on Shadelands
and if it's in the morning I what I found is that a lot of cars are going
are cutting off from Oak Grove to try to cut off the Oak Grove Ignacio
intersection and they are going very fast down Shadelands because they're
cutting off, they're cutting it off to save time. So I am concerned that there
is speeding that's happening on Shadelands and I don't get down to
Mitchell as much, but I would imagine most likely Mitchell, it's the same
reason there, and we're talking about seniors that are coming out of Viamante
that the reaction times may be slower if they're averaging the age of 86. I'm not
trying to put any predetermined ideas here, but I know my mother who's in
late 80s and slower reaction times and I there there was a concern there I'm
glad to hear about the raised crosswalks but I do think that we're seeing
speeding on Shadelands and Mitchell that that maybe hasn't been taken into
account as fully as it could be and I know there's the roundabout as well that
would slow traffic but anyway there's also bike lanes which would narrow things
as well because we do have parking and a wide cross section on Shadelands and it
encourages that speeding and so the roundabout the raised crosswalk and the
bike facilities would all help with that. Are we done with traffic? Okay thank you
next we'll let council member Davini bring up the next topic of questions
yeah everybody's still here. Yeah applicant's still here can I Jonathan ask you a
question? So yeah thanks for the presentation and I appreciate that you've
been working with the community to address some of their concerns in
regards to the comments earlier about the screening would you be amenable to
using an impervious surface on the the chain link fence to create a more robust
barrier than a porous material yeah I believe the what a green screen fence is
is some kind of vinyl or plastic sheathing which is what which would do
that exact thing. So okay we're all talking the same language here. Okay and
then you know I'm thinking about this and I just it seems challenging how one
would monitor a construction site and determine what the particulate matter
in the air is a contribution from construction if it's we think one tenth
of what the ambient particulate matter is, and how we would know if the total particulate
matter went up, how we would attribute a contribution from the construction site by
measuring it across the street. It seems like a potentially challenging topic, and I'm aware
of these monitors, and I follow them on the city as well, and as a doctor, I'm very concerned
about particulate matter and the health of your lungs and your bodies.
Have you thought of any way that that might be addressed?
I mean, I know you don't need to address it, so I'm certainly not saying that I'm not trying
to create some type of a mandate, but is there some type of discussion that could take place
where maybe they do install some monitors, and if there's a sudden spike, we take a look
what's going on on the construction site or have maybe a visit to see if there's something
abnormally taking place that would that would be harming the community.
Well again I mean you know we have you know as as Jackie mentioned there's a list of best practices
that we are going to be following right and all of those best practices address this this is not
the first construction project that has happened in Walnut Creek. This is not the first construction
project that has happened among elderly folks and people have managed to get
through those other ones right and so I'm loath to do anything that's not
already established by best practices I don't actually have a good solution to
what else we could do other than what we actually are already committing to but
we'll certainly let them know we can you know certainly have a dialogue about
when those construction activities could take place happy to do that if they want
to talk to our superintendent but yeah I mean I think we've we there are a list
of items, I think there's a list of horribles that people can think up, and oh my god I'm
going to go outside and I'm going to breathe in a bunch of constructions. I don't think
that's actually going to happen in reality. So I think we do have a box around this, in
all due respect.
And I think that's a fair point. I mean this isn't the first time a construction project's
taken place next to a vulnerable community, and we do multiply them times 10 for the sake
of analysis. And so there are these preordained sort of management strategies that the Bay
Area Air Quality District has imposed to address just such a concern. So I would encourage
you to purchase the monitors and just pay attention to what's going on from an air quality
standpoint. You can use it to guide activities. And you will have a liaison with the construction
sites so there would be an opportunity to discuss those metrics if they suddenly spiked
beyond what you can already measure is going on in other areas of the community.
So yeah and then if, so anyway, thank you for responding to that.
So I have a question in this.
Thank you very much.
No, wait.
Thank you very much for your presentation tonight and for your work on this.
I'm here.
With regard to the air quality issue, it's really about demolition and grading.
It's not about once you get the foundation port and the carpentry and the plumbing, etc.
How much time in this four to five-year process over 422 units is actually allocated to demolition
grading?
I forgot, we have there's a chart in the EIR that talks about exactly how.
I knew there was a chart.
I knew.
Always a chart.
I'm just.
A thousand pages of EIR.
Yes.
There's probably at least one chart.
Yes.
That is correct.
And my second question is, is it appropriate for you to be asked to contact regularly a
representative of Via Monti management as opposed to a resident so that the
management of Via Monti is responsible for communicating to his or her
broader community. I think what we could commit to is if there's somebody
whether it's a resident or the management that what they want to
nominate that they can talk to our site superintendent and they can be they can
come back and give updates. What I am concerned about is that the residents
change management doesn't sure if that's what if that's if that's the
wishes then that's that's okay with us so she's drilling in and what is she
finding sorry we can hear you but the audience at home can't you're exactly
right that the vertical construction comprises the vast majority of of the
construction timeline so we're looking at about 1100 days of vertical
building construction, which as you've noted is mostly conducted with electrical equipment.
There's not a lot of heavy machinery being used.
The demolition is anticipated to occur over approximately two months, site preparation
approximately three months and grading in about another month and a half.
So over a full construction timeline of between four and a half and five years, the vast majority
of that will be construction of the buildings and using electrical equipment or smaller
pieces of equipment little small baby hammers okay thank you any further
questions for the yeah I'm not sure if it's just if you can elaborate on the
use of tier 4 equipment because I think it can we know the code but how common
is it that construction projects are required to use that and can you explain
what Tier 4 is compared to Tier 1, 2, and 3?
Sure.
Well, Tier 4 equipment is the cleanest, least-emitting
equipment in existence today.
And it's the most stringent equipment
that's available on the market.
And it tends to be newer in the past five years or so.
And Tier 4 equipment reduces emissions
of both NOx, which is an ozone precursor pollutant,
and PM 2.5 primarily, by greater than 90%
for both of the two pollutants.
There are some contractors who use only the clean fleets,
but typically you'll see all Tier 4 equipment used
when it's imposed as mitigation.
And that's the case here.
It's the cleanest equipment and it'll be mandated to be used.
Exactly, it will be mandated to be used.
It is in the MMRP and
Jonathan will have to demonstrate prior to pulling demolition permits with the with the city
He will show a list of of equipment every equipment to be used the serial number
Verification that it's tier four. It's a little construction management plan that will be submitted along with
the demolition permit application
Then I had a question. I think for Jonathan about the
phasing of the development
will any of the office space remain open and
Leasable while you're constructing the other half
Yes, the phase two office building so there's five buildings in phase two. They will remain open
we will have
work with it as part of our
of our plan set you'll see there's like a there's a there's a phasing exhibit that talks about how we have to have adequate parking for
Those buildings and we'll have to you know coordinate, you know our construction activities to make sure that you know
they still are able to occupy their buildings and you know have the
Ability to go to work every day. But yes, they will remain open
Will they be least probably not because we're anticipating carrying them down
So the tenants that are there today will continue to remain. I don't think we'll give adding other tenants in
Is there a there will be the theoretic ability then to transfer current tenants from the phase one
buildings to the phase two buildings
Yes, and some of that is actually happening right now and some of the phase one buildings were putting them into building twelve
So some of that is already
Thank you
I got a few questions for you
And and some of these I've been holding on to for quite a while because we really haven't had the opportunity to question in the past
And I understand this is a build-over remedy project, but
Does signature homes are you the owner of the property? We don't currently own the property. We're under contract to purchase the property
Okay, so when in the purchase of property
When the purchaser bought this knowing the zoning was for businesses and lifestyle not housing which it that's how it has been zoned
What was the messaging to the city? Do you know when the purchaser originally bought the property? I'm not I'm not I don't know
I can't again. You haven't heard anything. I have not it's it's my understanding
That he led the city to believe that he would be putting his headquarters
Into this area and tenanting it for office and business use. Okay
When did the owner of the property decide they wanted to convert this to housing, you know
Well, they the application was submitted in October of 23. So somewhere around there I would assume
do we do the staff know when the
When the purchaser made the purchase of the property?
Or even a ballpark. Yeah, I would venture it was
Early 2023 somewhere between mid 22 to early 2023 somewhere in that time frame, okay
And the original purchaser of the properties, he still does own the property, that ownership
entity.
The purchaser that purchased it in 22 still owns the property.
Okay.
Um, and, uh, you know, I'm hoping you can be forthright in this, but why didn't the developer
work through normal channels for requesting a zoning change and a general plan amendment?
I think, uh, just simply because of the risk of doing so.
I mean, I think we had a clear path forward here and that's really the reason why.
So the builder's remedy was more expeditious than in working with the city.
And it was a more certain process, correct?
And at what point did the developer decide to submit a builder's remedy application?
October of 23.
Any reason why you waited until the very last possible minute?
I wasn't around when they did it, so I can't answer the answer question.
Okay, okay, that's my questions for now. Thanks. Thank you. So I have two more categories of questions one is trees
Okay, wait, so any it so this for the developer just want to make sure we're trying to do this
Maybe there's an arborist in the house
Okay, so any questions more for the developer
Great
Thank you. Thank you. All right trees. Let's talk about trees
Oh, you're gonna play arborist?
I don't believe we have an arborist in attendance,
Jonathan, no.
All right, we've had a number of comments
that saved the redwoods.
I come from what, we have a number of comments,
saved the redwoods more of the redwoods.
They're great trees.
Okay, that would be great.
The landscape architect is here.
Come on down.
So then I'm going to, so I appreciate,
so I was doing all, okay.
So I grew up in Santa Cruz, coastal,
I grew up in Santa Cruz, coastal environment.
There was a redwood tree in my backyard.
My father for 40 years owned a nursery business.
When I moved to Walnut Creek and he came to visit me,
I said, I wanna plant a redwood tree and he said, no.
Would you elaborate on that if you agree with him?
Redwoods are great trees along the coast in the Berkeley Hills.
They get the right kind of cool fog environment.
Around here, it's oak woodlands.
That's what you have.
And those are the trees that do well.
If you put redwood in, it needs a lot of water.
So you'll see a lot of cities are discouraging that now.
I also read yesterday from the State Park Association
about coastal redwoods that they have very shallow root
structures, so they're basically sitting right
underneath those foundations of those existing buildings.
Yeah, that could be true.
So demolition of those buildings is likely to damage.
But we picked ones that are, the ones that we're keeping
are more out in the open space right now.
And there was a comment about them being grouped.
The ones we're keeping are single trees,
or they're in smaller groups, too,
and we're keeping them like that.
OK, thank you.
That was what I needed to convert.
My father wasn't crazy.
No, he's right.
I agree with him.
More trees? Okay. Nope, you think we're good. Good on the trees. Say I have some
builder's remedy questions. I do too so okay. Okay we'll start with Councilmember
Silva then I'll follow up with mine. Well the one I wrote down yesterday was do
we have a choice if we if we deny this project or make it infeasible. Well I
I mean, what is considered infeasible under the state law?
I mean, it's infeasible for purposes
of facilitating the affordable housing component of it.
OK.
So the first basis for the denial
of a builder's remedy project is you
have to find a specific adverse impact.
OK, so give me an example of a specific adverse impact.
And I don't want to make my joke about a nuclear power plant.
So how about a gasoline refinery?
You could have a situation where, for instance,
there was, not using your example, but something similar,
so much contamination on the property that it couldn't be,
for whatever reason, it couldn't be feasibly mitigated
or remediated to allow residential development on it.
So that could potentially be something.
So you could have a wildfire issue?
A former gas station site that just was.
It depends.
Some of those are remediated to acceptable levels.
And you have to and it has to be based on an existing standard.
So it's not a new standard.
It has to be an existing standard
that you have to make your finding on when you're denying
a builder's remedy project.
The state law very narrowly defines the basis for denying a builder's remedy project and
also, Claire correct me if I'm misstating this, requires that not only that you make
that finding but the preponderance of the evidence supports that finding.
Typically city decisions are based on what's referred to as substantial evidence in the
standard.
So if you have conflicting testimony, the legislative body can choose a choice.
But in this, you have to have a preponderance of evidence, which means that the more than
50 percent kind of threshold of the evidence has to be in support of the fact that there's
a specific adverse impact that the project is creating.
So, Matt Reagan, from the Bay Area Council listed the consequences, or some of them,
of a denial.
Correct.
There are significant consequences associated with it.
There can be financial penalties associated with it.
You could have some type of enforcement action by HCD or by the Attorney General's office
if they chose to get involved in this.
As the council and I think the public may be aware, HCD, and I think some of the speakers
talked about it tonight, HCD is monitoring this project.
And so those are things that the city should keep in mind as they make the decision.
I think I have my questions answered.
Okay.
Okay.
That's a good segue, Steve, because I got some questions regarding HCD.
And I just want, since these won't really be able to brought up with questions of us
last year due to the specified timelines and what we were able to, I think this is important
to be brought up, first of all, for my own edification, if not for the rest of the council,
also for the public. So regarding the timeline, we adopted the current 2023-2031 housing element,
including the modification authority to address HCD changes
submitted on January 27th prior to the January 31st timeline.
The first addendum to the housing element was approved by the council on March 21st, 2023
and sent to HCD which issued a letter on March 27th and I see that right there
requesting changes to the housing element. When were the changes required to be submitted by
and how quickly, but let's start there, when were the changes required to be submitted by?
So Mayor, I'm going to, Claire has been the project attorney on this project
clarity through so I defer to Claire on this good evening mayor and council
Claire Lai assistant city attorney so under state law there is a timeline for
submitting housing element revisions and adoptions to HCD so the time frame we're
talking about here is after the city's the city's adopted the housing element
so I was sending it to AC for certification after the adoption so the
Timeline for HDD to review that is 60 days from the city's submittal
There is not a further timeline for the city to respond to the HDD comments in that process
But the HDD letter does say, you know, the city has to make these revisions in order to become
For the housing element to be certified. So that is the result that the city is trying to
trying to achieve, so that the timing follows that the city wants to be certified and so
responsible.
So let me understand that.
So they don't give us a timeframe or a deadline of when we need to submit them by, but then
their own imposed timeline is 60 days to go back to us.
That's right.
Okay.
And how quickly did HCD, on the March 27th submission, how quickly did they turn that
around?
So the time between March 27th and August 25th, so let me start with the letter from
HCD on for March 27th, it contained kind of lengthy changes and it's mostly on affirmative
fee for furthering fair housing, housing mobility, and the appropriateness of the city's inventory
sites in the housing element to show if it's available and suitable for housing.
So that took some time for the city to be able
to address that and during that time,
staff engaged ACD on several meetings
for kind of preliminary review,
which is something that ACD had offered to cities.
And so they, and as I recall,
they were fairly responsive in being able
to meet with the city.
So that involves the kind of steps for the city
address that and to converse with HCD. And so then on August 1st the council
approved a second addendum of the housing element as requested which was
submitted to HCD on August 25th, 2023 and it shows that right there. Was
this ahead of the, well I guess you're saying there wasn't a deadline that HCD
imposed, we submitted it with enough time. Right and you know they took time and
again we did meet with HCD staff prior to submitting again in October and so
that's kind of the same process. And how long did they take the respond to that
submission? I believe they took close to the 60 days. Close to 60 days. Just for
the council's benefit and Claire can expand on this too. HCD has a 60 day
turnaround timeline and they generally took the full 60 days to respond but the
point Claire is also making is that during intervening times we were having
regular meetings with them to try to get them to and have us understand that the
amendments we were proposing to address their earlier concerns were in fact
addressing their concerns so it was it was an iterative process with HCD but
they were taking 60 days and as the council recall on a creek along with all
of the other cities in Northern California were working towards this at
their time so so we were we would have much preferred shorter turnaround times
by them but we were not surprised because of the volume of work they were
doing at the time. And so is there an ultimate deadline submission time that
we had to be approved by the HCD was that date a fixed date? You needed a
certified housing element by a fixed date to ensure that you would not be
subject to potential builders remedy applications. Remember as I think Mayor
your question kind of reference tonight this particular builder's application
builder's remedy application came in less than a week before we were
certified and after we had if you will gone pens down on the housing element
we had finished it and it was in final public review which is also a state law
requirement not a city determination and it was during that time period that it
submitted. So there's a fixed date that we need to have approved by the by HCD
and HCD is taking a large part of that Delta in between submissions pushing us
closer and closer to that date while we are responding positively and approving
it on council prior to HCD getting back to us. That's partially correct but just
so that the record is clear.
The date to have your certified housing element
was January 31st, clear, right, 2023.
And so any time after January 31st, 2023,
we were subject to a potential builder's remedy application,
just the city never received one until the very end
when it received this application.
So then there came a technical update
that we then had a, can you describe what a technical update
means to the adopted housing element
that we had already submitted?
Yeah, so as I was saying, we had,
the staff had a series meeting with HED,
so we went through the edits,
and the technical update is the final set of edits
that were, I think it was updating the site,
the site profiles in response to public comments
that we received about the site's owner
or developer interest.
There were some modifications to the program timelines
for the city to carry them out.
But they were more final changes on this.
OK.
And so when we did then submit that to HCD,
it looks like October 13th here, was HCD
given an indication that the housing element would
be accepted?
Did HCD give an indication prior to 10-13
that the housing element would be accepted
if the specific criteria requested were amended
and if we complied with the requested change?
So from the March 27th letter,
that letter had said if the city makes these changes
and adopts as appropriate,
the housing element will be found
in some serious compliance.
However, because of the lengthiness
of the requested changes,
that's really a generally applicable statement.
that's why we went through that process to communicate with HDD for to engage
with them about preliminary review and when it was close to October 13th, I
think we, I recall that we met with HDD a day or two before and they were aware
that we were going to submit. It was coming. Yeah. And we submitted it, the technical
update on October 13th and that's where we have that seven days that we had to
have it open for public comment?
That's correct.
So state law requires that before it can be approved,
finally, by HCD, you do have to have a seven day public review
period.
As I recall, we had a number of those during the time period.
But the last one we did, and that's a state law requirement,
and HCD will not issue a final approval
unless that public comment period is satisfied.
And in reality, we were getting comments,
and this is quite common in all cities in California,
you get comments during all of those
seven day public review periods,
and HCD will often ask you,
do you have a response to that comment?
It doesn't mean that they make you start
another seven day review period,
just because they got the first comment,
but we do get comments during that time period,
typically we respond to those comments and HCD has you know when they're ready
to certify they will accept your response and certify anyway they don't
start a new seven-day period. So they said if you make these changes we will
certify we made the changes we submitted they had already sort of
pre they had said that that would be accepted we go in the seven days and in
In that seven days, right at the end,
just before HCD approves the housing element
and certifies it, we get a builder's remedy.
Did I have that right?
That's correct, within the last week.
Can I ask a question in here?
But if at any time between October 24th
and when our original deadline was in the earlier January,
we could have gotten a builder's remedy project
any point in that time and up until October 24th when they certified we
would have had to accept that builders remedy project this one came in late but
it could have come in at any point in that time once we were passed the
initial deadline no matter how much HCD was saying you're good you're close
until we reached that final certification the legislature has made it
clear that we are subject to build this remedy.
I get that it's legal.
It's not fair, but it's legal.
Well, I'm not even going to say not fair.
I get that it's legal.
It feels like a loophole, and this is something
that it seems in an area, and I can
talk about that another time, but in an area
that the developer knew was more expeditious to this
than go through a normal collaborative process.
Can I ask if maybe,
and I think council member Darling asks us already,
but just maybe to put more of a fine point on it,
from the legal standpoint then,
the substantial compliance,
whether or not you have a substantially compliant
housing element, the key date for that
is when a preliminary application is submitted.
That's right.
And the way that's shown is either by HCD certification
or court indicates that you have a substantially compliant.
Yes, that's correct.
And so that's the law.
I mean, I think the legislature has made it clear
through this process that those are the rules.
Yeah, and that's the current law.
That's been codified in statute.
The bill that codified this law also
said that it was declaratory of existing law.
And prior to the bill coming into effect,
HCD first had already issued the same,
the technical advice letter that has the same position,
saying cities cannot self-certify it.
It must be HCD compliance certification.
And also, tri-courts were following that position.
Are you aware of any authority that would suggest
that you're substantially compliant
before HCD tells you you are?
We're not aware.
There's no governing case on that.
And in the conversation, I know HCD is monitoring this project.
Have they given any indication that you could be substantially
compliant before they tell you you are?
No, their position has been the same.
I'm sorry.
And I was just going to say that in terms of the timeline, too,
my recollection was between March and August,
there was a fair amount of back and forth with HCD
about the sites on the inventory.
but there was also a fair amount of back and forth
separate and apart from the inventory
on the affirmatively furthering fair housing.
Yes, that's right.
And quite honestly, that felt a little more hot and cold
than quantitative get assurances
whether this site's gonna be developed
during that time period.
It was a new requirement that it seemed like
they were figuring out as we were figuring out,
And that took time to comply with that new state mandate.
That you're not just meeting the numeric number,
but you're also providing the opportunity
for a diversity of housing types,
including missing middle types throughout the city.
Yes, that's correct.
I would say the experience is not unique to Walnut Creek.
So just to add, sorry, Craig, I'll get right to you.
So just to add onto that,
did state law change from the time
of our initial required housing element submission
to what happened after it was submitted and resubmitted
and finally approved, did state law change at all
or direction change at all?
So the housing element law about what's in,
has to be in the housing element,
that was already in place.
The statute about the specific substantial compliance date,
the new statute, that was not there.
But like I was saying, that the legal landscape
is largely the same because of HCD's position,
the case, the trial court case trends.
And so there's not really a noticeable difference, I guess,
in the legal trends of it.
But it seems like there was a question
about self-certification that the courts have now addressed.
But it seemed that there was a little bit more ambiguity
to that early on until the I's were dotted
and the T's were crossed.
Yeah, it's, so there was an absence of clear law.
So what people were looking at early on
was really just the statute and the wording in the statute.
And what transpired over time, so between 23 and now,
2023 and now, was, as Claire's indicated,
technical advice from HCD, which is the regulatory agency tasked
with implementing the housing laws,
a specific change in state law, which
was very relatively recent, which specifically now
has in state law that only the court or HCD certification
is what matters.
There is no self-certification.
And there are a series of trial court decisions,
not binding on anybody but the parties,
that have essentially affirmed HCD's technical advice.
And so the trend line was towards what the legislature
ultimately adopted.
There is, Claire as I recall,
there's one Superior Court case that could be interpreted
to allow some variants of self-certification,
but that is an anomaly amongst all the cases.
The rest of the cases have been supportive
of HCD's timeline, including very recent cases.
Let me try this.
So, let me, sorry.
I just wanted to go to Craig first because he's been patient
while I ask my questions.
And this was really honing in on me.
Let me just do this one.
I'm not asking a lot of questions tonight.
It sounds like it was more a case of the statute
was what it was, and you could read that statute
a number of different ways about when a housing element was certified.
You could read it.
When we took action in January of 23,
we were reading it to read that we could self-certify.
But it became clear as court cases evolved and legislation was passed,
and the way that legislation was written,
that the people in charge of that statute,
HCD disagreed with our interpretation
back in January of 23.
In January of 23, we thought perhaps self-certification
was enough, but it became clear in the process
of going from there till now that HCD believes
and has case law and legislation behind it
that says it's not until they certify.
That is generally correct.
I wouldn't make the point so strongly
that we believed we could self-certify.
OK, that that was not maybe the intent of the staff,
the intent of our office and everyone else in the council's
actions were to have a substantially compliant housing
element by January 31st, because we did not want to be exposed
to builders remedy.
And so there were arguments in favor of self-certification
at the time.
Those arguments are now both weaker from a case law
standpoint and are now have been overridden
by state law changes.
That's a much more lawyerly way of saying well.
And ultimately, the clock didn't stop when we submitted.
The clock just kept on going, even though they
came back to us.
Well, and we knew on January 27 that they had 60 days
to review it and determine whether it was substantially
compliant and certified.
So I don't recall feeling like we were done on January 27th.
I recall knowing that they had that 60-day period,
and then they replied and said it's not.
Well, I do recall knowing that we submitted it,
and we felt that we checked all the boxes.
But the other thing that we knew
was that Southern California was ahead of us,
and they were all hitting this barrier in Southern California.
Our consultants were telling us that colleagues all
over the state were saying that the builder's remedy was
cropping up to the tune of 4,000 units in Santa Monica,
I mean, it was in front of us.
We are lucky we only got one.
Well, and I guess that was the point, not that we were lucky,
but I don't know if any city avoided this exposure.
I don't know of any city that turned in their housing element.
Alameda.
They got it right the very first time, no feedback.
Yeah, they did.
And then somebody decided it was more fun
to put us through our misery.
So yeah, to speak to the unfair process.
You know, when you submit and then they reinterpret
and they bring in new language, and you submit again,
and all that time being exposed to this sort of hammer
of a builder's remedy solution, it certainly
didn't feel like cities across California
were treated fairly.
And that spawned legislation that was then
Which was not signed by the governor.
It was not signed by the governor because of the political wins that exist right now,
which is just, you know, very pro-housing in cities being painted as maybe not being
completely compliant with trying to further that agenda.
So I think we behaved very progressively in this manner trying to get our housing elements
certified, but we were subject to the political wins that existed in the state right now.
So last year's legislation went through both houses unanimously.
on the governor's desk and the LAO, the Legislative Analyst's Office and HCD said it would cost
too much money and HCD said they argued they shouldn't be required to do our work for us.
I think that's the process flaw right there. So I had a follow-up, are you done with your
question? Yeah. Follow-up question. I think it's for Simmer or Erica. It's just kind of something
that's crept up, which is the next best fit zone being MF2. And if that's the
case, why does the project still require 14 waivers? I mean, is it really the
next best fit zone, or is there another next best fit? Well, firstly, there's, we
could probably pull up that slide. I have a quick one. Yeah, that lists all the
waivers so the not 14 yes and if you see that there's different because there's
different zones that we were trying to make sure this project complies so I
see all of the standard so when you look at it that way it's actually not asking
for a lot of weight I see yeah it's three for the end to exactly and it
meets everything else it does meet the development standards of both the
business park as well as the M2 for floor area and then height regulations
for the business park so it meets many of all of these listed other than
primarily setbacks it's really the correct and the storage requirement
that's required for multifamily okay yeah the 200 cubic feet of enclosed
private storage is the idea that people are going to store things and they're
where people are gonna store things? It's a requirement so I mean the stored in the
units. The unit or in the garage? Yeah in the garages. Two car garages correct. Okay
thank you that that's helpful that's a clarifying slide. Any more questions or
topics that we have? All right I guess that's our questions. So let's bring it
back to council for comments actually let me ask our city attorney there when
the time comes for motions should they be taken separately for each of the
different appellants the action is to the act no short answer is no they can
be taken together because the action would be to deny both appeals that's the
staff recommendation and affirm the Planning Commission's decision based on
the resolutions, I do think if the council's had a fair amount of dialogue
amongst yourself and with the applicants and whatnot about in particular one
condition, possibly two, and so if we wanted to convert the requirement for
the non-porous dust barrier along Shadelands Drive, they put one into a
condition we have some wording for that the applicant should indicate whether
they would agree to that on the record and then there's been some discussion
about providing notice and I think the applicant and the and the be a Monte
representatives have both talked about getting notice about demolition and
grading phasing and scheduling of some sort so they can self-select if they
don't want to be outdoors and so if the council wanted to add two conditions
those two those are ones that we have wording for if you would like to do it
but we would need the applicant to agree to those on the record as well too if
the council wishes to impose those conditions. Can I ask a question about the
errata? Correct go ahead. On this change to attachment to draft resolution this I
think is in response to the via Monte request for notification and the
condition references the applicant shall provide written notice to all property
owners that would be via Monte not the residents because the residents are not
technically property owners that that could be the via Monte property
management that's correct. Okay, thank you. Let's go to council comments. Any
further comments to make? We'll cover with councilmember Darling. Or Silva.
Councilmember Silva. All right councilmember Darling. I'll start. I, you know, I
appreciate the appeals and chance to work this with you. I understand that
this is a city that we all love and we're all concerned about it and we want
to make sure that things are happening in a way that protects and meets our
goals for sustainability, for public health, for transportation safety. I've
looked through the issues raised and with the two exceptions of the city
attorney, I'm ready to trust staff that they have looked at the health impacts,
that they have looked at the environmental impacts. You know when
When when the orchards and via Monte went in we took out over 300 trees and it is a beautiful place to live
We can work through our process. We have a track record of
Following the rules following the the mitigation measures that we establish in the EIR
following the the plans
Monitoring it and making sure that what we come out the other end with
is a good project that protects your health,
that protects the transportation issues.
So I am ready, and I do believe that this project is,
we are lucky we only got one
Builders Remedy project out of everything,
but in my mind, looking at it,
it is subject to the Builders Remedy,
and I think, more importantly,
I am the mother of two young professionals
who are trying to live in the Bay area.
One's a civil engineer, one's a nurse.
They make a lot of money and they cannot afford
to live in Walnut Creek and it's heartbreaking.
One family has already moved to Sacramento,
so I'm gonna have to strive to see those grand babies.
I want to be able to have my kids here at Walnut Creek
and they might have to live in something
that's not as nice as what they were raised in,
but I want to make sure that there's a room for them
in this city because it's the right thing to do.
So I am prepared to support this project.
I recognize that there are concerns about it,
but I want you to know that we've heard you
and we're going to make sure that we take care
of the construction impacts especially.
Council Member Silva.
I agree and thank you for saying it much more eloquently
I can with whatever pollen is in the air. It's driving me crazy. This is a builder's
remedy project and I trust our staff and our attorneys and all that I've been
hearing all over the state of my involvement at the state that this is a
builder's remedy project. We are lucky that we only got one. The problem is not
the builder's remedy rules, it's the process that HCD was using of moving the
goalposts because they couldn't figure out what the new regulations requirements
were that were adopted by the legislature in 2017. So they were
basically trying to refuel and build the plane while they were flying it. It
didn't work out well. We tried last year to get better legislation to tighten it
for the seventh cycle arena. We're still going to try again. But this was this is
builder's remedy project and the thing is though it's a good project it we need
housing and we need housing that is middle income and of this style it is
not unusual for Walnut Creek it's just it is a better project than the Summer
Hill project that's up on Palma which is all white this is has a variation of
style variation of color the landscaping is better it's more it looks more
welcoming I appreciate the changes that were made based on the design review
comments and and it brings in that there's going to be 55 affordable units
for lower income it's a it's a for sale project it is starter homes we don't
start we didn't start in four-bedroom houses we started in studio apartments
in Chicago, but this is good for us, and they've addressed the issues at a level that is above
and beyond, and I think there is a way to – I appreciate the errata sheet that talks
about the – I'm looking at what the two are – so one is related to the notification
demolition and the other is related to the other both the other the other
condition will read into the record okay it's actually the same yeah I'm just
gonna say that to the to both resolutions doesn't make a change all
right thank you and so I'm prepared to support the project council member
Davini yeah just to address it from the appeal standpoint you know I think that
that we really did look very closely
and take the appeals very seriously
and the concerns and the points that you raised.
And I do think that based on our current law,
this is a builder's remedy project
that we didn't by the definition that exists
now have a substantially compliant housing element.
In order to reject the project,
We would have to show that it has an impact that we cannot mitigate.
And I don't think that the evidence has risen to that level.
There's a feasibility issue if we were to change it to senior housing, it would change
the number of units, it would fall out of builder's remedy, the project would be denied
and we would be on the hook for the state for denying a builder's remedy project.
So I don't think there's a feasible pathway there.
I think the traffic studies were comprehensive and, you know, I do think that the evidence
is that we'll have more traffic on Ignacio during peak commute times.
And the CEQA though is not looking at level of service and how bad the traffic is specifically
going to be impacted on Ignacio.
It's looking at vehicle miles traveled.
And so then again, we're back to that.
The law only allows us to deny a project based
on very specific language.
And in this case, I don't think that we can show a significant
impact from that regard.
And as far as noticing, I want to go back
to April of last year.
I mean, we knew, I mean, we knew, we talked about it
as soon as this project came about,
that this would be an issue at this state right here,
where the project would be before us.
And how do we alert the community?
How do we have these discussions?
How do we engage?
And we specifically designed a meeting and a discovery process
around that in April of last year
to try to draw public discussion,
to try to shed light on the project,
and let everybody know it was coming.
But it's very hard.
People are busy.
So I think we met the legal requirements for noticing.
We certainly tried above and beyond that to notice.
I included it in my newsletter to talk about.
So you're never going to reach everyone,
and we'll continue to try to be better about that.
But we made an effort.
In regards to the pollution, I think
we've talked about that fairly extensively.
I think that we're the project is complying with best practice as far as controlling particulate
matter and dust and environmental hazards and they're using qualified hazmat contractors
which will not allow things like asbestos and so forth to be projected into the community.
I think I heard that they're the applicant is comfortable providing an occlusive barrier
on the fence which is a concession that we appreciate. In regards to emergency
access, I not only work in the ER but I also work for the fire department and I
am sure that if they thought this was an issue of access this was going to
impair an emergency medical response and if the police department felt that
their ability to access these buildings was going to be impaired based on the
The project design that they would have told us that that's a very important issue for them
And they would not have taken that analysis lightly, so
If they've signed off on it, then then I believe that there will not be any
Those done this project to make sure that they're all being adhered to so you'll have
Multiple points of contact, but primarily the contractor and city staff. I mean stepping back I
It is a I'm convinced it is a builder's remedy project. I don't have really any doubts about that
but I also think that I
See the the positives of this project as well. They've been articulated by my colleagues in terms of
Missing middle housing. It's exactly what HCD was holding up certification of our housing element over because we didn't provide for a diversity
of housing types, primarily out in Ignacio Valley.
That's why they said they weren't gonna,
we had enough units downtown and around the BART station,
they wanted us to provide townhome type developments
out in Ignacio Valley, which is exactly what this is.
Shadelands as a business park,
I wouldn't say it's in transition,
but it's had challenges over the years,
and I think this executive park,
if it was fully leased with office,
we would have never got this proposal.
Or if there was a potential to redevelop it as office,
this wouldn't have come forward either in January of 2023
or October of 2023.
But the park is changing and evolving.
And I think generally that's a good thing.
I think it is a good thing.
I think that we've struggled with shade lens for a while.
And I mentioned earlier in my report
that we have vacancies.
We have plenty of vacant office space
in and around the BART station.
So we're not short for office space.
I was encouraged to hear,
the type of office space that's at that executive park
tends to be smaller spaces
that could be unique and in demand.
So I was encouraged to hear that there's the potential
for that to at least be available during construction
that it won't go away immediately overnight.
I think the affordable housing component of this is huge.
Double the amount of affordable housing
that would be required otherwise under our ordinance.
I think we can't dismiss that lightly.
I'd also say that our housing element,
we have to solve for 5,800 and some odd units by 2031.
And we need to pick up the pace on that,
that as of through last year,
we've issued 244 building permits
and we need to have issued 5,800 by 2031
and the consequences of us not doing that,
we don't know that yet,
but I imagine they'll be similar to a builder's remedy
or additional penalties for not actually,
not just planning for the units,
but actually producing them.
I'm also the parent of two 20-year-olds
that I would like them to have the opportunity
to move back and live and own something in Walnut Creek
if that's what they desire to do.
I don't know that it's Mitchell Town Homes,
but something like this is more affordable
than a single family home for sure.
So I see the benefit of that.
I think it's a nicely designed project.
It's nicely landscaped.
I think it will be an amenity and a benefit.
we heard that from Joy Bound in the park.
And I think it's also significant that the EIR
found that all the significant impacts could be mitigated.
That's not always the case for a project of this size,
that you'll at least have a significant unavoidable
VMT impact or a significant unavoidable
greenhouse gas emission impact.
It did find significant impacts to air quality,
and that it imposed the most stringent mitigation measures
to make sure that there wouldn't be any adverse self-impacts.
So I too am prepared to support this.
And I just wanted to echo Jan's comments
that you did a nice job tonight leading the discussion.
Well, I appreciate that.
Thank you.
We'll see what you say after what I have to say.
But first of all, I want to thank everybody for speaking.
I want to thank the applicant, the Appellants, all the public,
most of whom are now back.
Viamante, you're the last of the crew here that's still here.
Living in that area, I come across people all the time in that area.
I don't know how many times I've been to Viamante, just in different speaking engagements.
People see me in the store.
People see me walking around.
Almost everybody knows where I live.
And so I've heard about this for the last few years, of course.
And I've had a lot to say over, well, two and a half years, I suppose, since the Bibles
remedy came to us, but we've really been handcuffed in being able to even say
anything. So I'm going to say it now. And we do need housing. There's no question of
that. To Mayor Pro Tem Francois' mention is that the HCD may have been holding up
the certification of the element because they wanted more housing down Ignacio
Valley. Of course, the council has been very determined over several decades of
having housing downtown where there is public transit and where there are
options beyond having a car. The HCD has required housing and required us to meet
these housing numbers but they're not requiring jobs to be built there, they're
not requiring transportation options, just the housing, which as we know has
has been a problem throughout the area here, throughout California, throughout a
lot of the country that doesn't have efficient public transit all over. I mean
especially having been in Japan, we were never more than a few blocks from a
train station. I mean that is just not the case here. So the area in question as
we know is zoned for business entertainment and lifestyle use. We have
senior housing allowance there but we don't have allowance for market rate
housing and this is a concern of course. It contradicts city priorities and
directives over these past decades.
It's three miles from Pleasant Hill to Walnut Creek
barge stations, not serviced by consistent public transit.
I can read tea leaves as well as anybody else.
This obviously looks like it's going to end up going through.
There is going to be a need for more public transit.
And this is something that we're all
going to have to deal with, including Mitchell townhomes
and developing anywhere else in the city.
We've been thoughtful about building housing downtown
just because of this, where people don't necessarily need to drive, they can go into
a bus and it's a free shuttle. We've done all these things to try to make it as easy
as possible for people to then live downtown. This will increase commute and drive times
for everyone since driving down Ignacio Valley and Treet are the only practical ways to get
to downtown and the freeway. It increases greenhouse gas emissions and cars on the road,
something that's been another priority. We've been trying to keep that off. It goes against
are combating climate change and sustainability, it does.
It eliminates a large zoned area for jobs.
Like you mentioned that there is a vacant office
space downtown near Barthes.
That's true.
But as we've heard from previous building development
proposals in the area, these small office spaces
are unique that different businesses can go there,
and they don't need to have class one buildings to go in.
So it's going to reduce that.
The executive business part, by the way,
had an 85% occupancy rate prior to all of this,
which was great for local jobs.
In fact, with a change like this,
this is now going to increase housing over jobs.
We've been trying to more balance the housing and jobs
ratio and not make it so much housing versus jobs.
And we're trying to reduce that.
That's been a priority in our economic development.
What does this do?
It actually increases it.
And that's a challenge for us.
Walnut Creek has not been a bedroom community,
and we've done a good job in building homes.
This kind of a project, whether or not,
I mean, Builders Remedy, understand that.
These kind of projects are going to make us more
of a bedroom community, something
that we've tried to avoid.
Had the developer wanted to submit an application
for their project, along with their request for rezoning,
we could have reviewed that.
We could have discussed it.
of collaborated and come to negotiations on that.
They didn't want to.
Nope, this is the most efficient way.
We don't have to deal with City Council.
State says we can do it.
We're doing it right before the deadline that it's approved.
It doesn't feel right.
It may be legal.
It doesn't feel right.
It doesn't feel good.
And I am speaking on behalf of the residents that
live in that area of Walnut Creek,
because I feel I would be doing them a disservice if I was not
representing their views here at the dais.
What is being done is we need housing,
and the way this has been done doesn't feel good.
Regarding the EIR and traffic,
I appreciate the work that you've done
and the consulting on this.
I live there, I drive it every day.
This is going to increase commute times.
I hesitate to say what Judge Judy said,
but don't tell me, don't on my shoes
and tell me that it's raining.
I understand here, but this is going to increase traffic.
It just is you cannot add 400 to 800 cars between the hours
of eight and nine and not expect it to in that area.
It's highly impacted.
And one thing I do want to mention,
and this goes back to something that we had in a June 22
meeting, where I stated in my comments then for a proposal,
is that my general concern is that we're now
looking to further reduce the business-and-jobs aspect of the
Shevland's district and setting a precedent and we're going to continue to
support a business-and-jobs district or we're going to continue to fragment away
the business district away from jobs and never to return. And sure enough in the
agenda report here it states the presence of existing senior living
facilities immediately adjacent to the site along with planned residential
development along Mitchell Drive and a neighborhood shopping center demonstrates
that the proposed Mitchell Town Homes Project is compatible with the city's long-term land
use direction for this area. Exactly what I brought up here at the dais four years ago
is coming to fruition. We are setting a precedent and now the next development that's going
to come to ask for us to make a change is going to use this as you've got market rate
housing here, now we can continue to eat away in this area that is, that is, that is districted
for and zone for jobs.
So it does conflict with at least two
of our five strategic priorities.
On the Viamante Appeal, I'm hoping
that the developer works with you on some of these.
I think they make sense.
I think it's easy to be able to do.
And I've heard already that they're amenable to that.
But I don't think that anything stands
to the level of accepting the appeal which
puts the project on hold.
I encourage you to continue to work
and maybe have Mitchell Town Homes work
with Viamante Management,
as Council Member Silva had suggested.
However, on the issue of traffic,
as it relates to Ignacio Valley Road
and the feeder streets that those currently lightly
use streets during commute times,
which will undoubtedly be impacted during commute times,
especially specifically on Mitchell and Viamante
and Shadelands and Wigot,
in addition to Ignacio Valley Road and Oak Grove Road,
I think that is an issue.
And the appellant on the Friends of Walnut Creek, right.
Steve Elster would like to see that they require
a supplemental traffic study addressing directional peak
hour traffic impact, which I does
believe warrant further study.
Not trying to stop the project.
I think we've agreed.
It's builder's remedy.
This is going to happen, regardless of what anybody may want.
It's going to happen.
But we're looking at a major change to an area in a significant part of our city.
And we need to have further information available that would impact the surrounding
area and people's lives.
I think a supplemental traffic study addressing directional peak hour traffic
impact would be of great help.
And for that reason, I'll support the appeal until that's provided.
So, with that, I'm willing to entertain a motion.
I was, yeah, I appreciate your comments, Mayor.
And I think you make some really excellent points.
And you live this more than any of the rest of us.
So I don't discount that.
And I've had the experience of Ignacio going
in the direction of commute.
I mean, even to get to the groundbreaking for Heather
Farm from South Walnut Creek was a half an hour.
I just I did want to point out that I in my mind there is we're building an ethos and a culture in
Shade lens with shuttle service going from shade lens to Pleasant Hill Bart
So I think there is I mean it's not Bart right at your doorstep
but we're trying to make it easy for people to use an alternative transportation and
In my mind the market is it's not what we're doing the markets already making these decisions
Del Monte is closing, Joint Genome closed, and to rehab that building would have required
a substantial expenditure of money that the owner was not going to do and it went to senior
housing instead. So I mean, we either we can control it to some extent, but there are some
things that we can't control and the market will dictate it and we can try to be in control
of it somewhat, but I think holding on to the idea that it's going to be this traditional
business park from the 70s and 80s. I don't see that as a future for
Shadelands. I see an exciting future still a mixed-use future where they're
still an office component. I'd like to see the opportunity for smaller bit like
you said incubator business space and when I was mayor met with some startups
that have now won awards that were in the executive park and I want to see the
ability for that space to still exist in Shadelands because I don't think they
can afford the Golden Triangle. But I mean I think it's it's been a good
discussion obviously there'll be more of a discussion as part of the general plan
update but for now I'm if I'm prepared to make a motion. I just want to get
comment yeah before we make the motion. Let me make one comment. I look at
sustainability from a much bigger lens. Prior to joining the Planning Commission
And I was working on development out in San Joaquin County.
And what I was finding there, all the new towns being built
and planned, hundreds of thousands
of people in San Joaquin County right up against the county
line, and then jumping in their cars
and driving to San Francisco.
So while I know this impacts Ignacio,
if these people aren't living in Walnut Creek,
they're going to live in Concord,
they're going to live in Tracy,
they're going to live in Mountain House,
they're going to live in Lathrop.
It's a bigger puzzle piece that we have to look at.
And so I know it's hard for those of you
who are out at Ignacio,
but you have to look at it in the bigger ecosystem.
People are willing to drive two and three hours
to get to the Bay Area.
They're forced to drive, too.
They're forced to drive, so.
I agree with you that it's going to make traffic worse
on Ignacio.
I said that during my comments, so I think you're right.
The supplemental study that would analyze directional traffic,
as you were saying, it looks like this project is
going to go through.
It's a builder's remedy project.
The supplemental study, what would its function
be in this in in regards to this project can I make a suggestion we're about to
start the general plan process I was just study on Ignacio is part of that
process not part of this development but I was just asking Mayor Will
specifically when when he was asking for that like how we would use that well I
would it would give us more information that would make a significant change of
the city and so is it is it an option where we could go forward with the denial
of the appeal but yet at the same time agree to do a supplemental study to look
at directional traffic to use that for purposes of city planning I don't think
I would that would be a conflict so I probably so most likely not but I do
think it I do think a study like that is going to be needed for sure that not
just for this I do think that's going to be needed traffic on Ignacio between 10
and two is very different than between eight and nine. Agreed. So are you
thinking your traffic study, are you thinking you uphold the appeal, you would
want to uphold the appeal and pursue the traffic study or would you want to
pursue the traffic study as part of our general plan, recognizing that we're
going to be strategic in that general plan and focus on the big issues like
Well, I would uphold the appeal.
Risking?
Risking.
I'm one vote.
I'm one vote.
And I would uphold the appeal.
I'm not asking everybody else to on behalf of where I live,
and what I've heard, and what I've seen,
and what I experience daily.
Until I saw something that was specifically
a submittal traffic study looking at directional peak
traffic, that's what I would base that on. Would you still have that opinion if we
all said we're right? Let's find out. Can I ask a question of staff? Can I make a motion? Can I ask a
question of staff? I could swear I saw a directional peak hour study in that
traffic analysis. It was referenced. He's nodding yes. It was there. It may not
to say what you wanted to say. Well again and I'd ask a question of our legal
council is under the Housing Accountability Act is directional
traffic does that qualify as a significant? We can deny the project
presumably if we find there's a significant adverse impact to the public
health and safety based on a qualified standard that was in effect when the
preliminary application was submitted so would this study meet that standard no
I don't think it would I think that the you have a study before you have
information in the record right now which shows that there's not significant
traffic impacts from the project and that's the evidence and if I go back to
the comment I made earlier the burden under the builders remedy laws you have
to you have to make the finding by a preponderance of the evidence and you
really don't have a preponderance of the evidence on the other side. So can you
read the conditions Steve that you had drafted for? So one of the two conditions
is in the errata that was provided to the council and has been posted publicly
and that's the one that's providing notice and just to be clear it talks
about notice to the property owners the property owners are via Monte
management if you will, they're not all of the residents out there so that it's
that one as it's drafted and then the second one would be that the applicant
shall construct and maintain during construction an eight-foot solid non
porous dust barrier along Shadelands Drive and if the council is okay with
that I would recommend that the council ask the applicant if they agree to those
two conditions and state that on the record. So can the applicant address
those revisions? I think we're generally okay. I think we would just want to say
it's a green screen fence. That's a construction term that we all know that's
accepted by the construction community. So rather than a barrier I just would
prefer that if you all be okay with that. You know I'm okay with that because I I
I know the primary mitigation here is the watering the covering the trucks and using the tier four it the green screen is
really more of an aesthetic than
Particulate matter, but I'm okay. So I'm okay with that. I would be it to clarify it eight feet
And using a common term helps make it yeah
Okay, so then with that that clarification
You were okay with the other
The notification measure. Okay got a nod from the applicant
I would move that we deny both appeals and affirm the Planning Commission's February 12
2026 decision that we certify the EIR and approve the project entitlements
subject to conditions of approval and attachments 1 & 2
with the changes to condition
Number one oh two in the errata sheet and with the clarification that the green screen construction fence will be eight feet in height
And that that would be a condition of approval that we would
Conditions that would be imposed as a condition of approval second mayor and council
I just note the council has a unique situation where you have two resolutions in your packet
So this motion is approving both of them
One of those resolutions is specific to the via Monte appeal and the other one is specific to the Friends of Walnut Creek appeal
Correct. That was the intent of my motion and we have a motion in a second. Could you take the roll call, please?
Mayor Pro Tem Francois. Hi councilmember Silva. Hi councilmember Darling. Hi councilmember Davini. Hi mayor. Well
For the reasons stated I will be voting no
until a supplemental traffic study addressing the directional peak hour traffic impact would be
provided, obviously being in the minority vote on that, it won't be provided, but hopefully
for the general plan it will be.
And with that, we are adjourned.