Good evening.

Welcome to the February 12th, a regular meeting of the Walnut Creek Planning Commission.

I'll ask the secretary to take the roll.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Moran?

Here.

Commissioner Cound.

Here.

Commissioner Strongman.

Here.

Commissioner Kwok.

Here.

Commissioner Klopp.

Here.

Vice Chair Knighting?

Here.

And Chair Anderson.

Here.

Commission's all here.

We have quorum.

Thank you.

Do we have anything on the consent calendar tonight?

Staff has no recommendations for consent.

Okay.

And we will pass on to public communications.

Let me take a little minute to explain that because I have a hunch we got to have a lot of public communications tonight.

You have two chances, two opportunities to speak if you wish.

You get a chance to speak on either of the hearings when those hearings come up on the agenda.

You'll also have a chance right now during the public communications portion to comment on anything which is not on the agenda.

So if you have something to talk about Mitchell Townhomes or Porsche, you can uh that has to wait until those hearings come up.

If you have something else to do, you can do it uh then.

Is there anybody who has a comment on something not on the agenda?

Seeing none of your bat here.

Okay.

There seems to be no one wishing to speak in public communications.

Closer.

Closer.

Okay.

I would move this, but it doesn't move.

Sorry.

Um so uh when the time comes, uh, since there's a lot of people here tonight, just try to explain it once.

Um since we don't have any comments now, but we will have during the the hearings, when the hearing comes up, the applicant will have uh time to present.

I'm sorry, the staff report first to kind of lay out what the the hearing is about.

The applicant has a chance to describe his project.

Um then each of you who has filled out a yellow um speaker card uh can get to speak.

Uh each of you will have two minutes.

We have a lot of cards already, so that will take uh some time even at two minutes apiece.

Um so uh do try to be succinct in what you say.

Um no one is obligated to take all of their time, applicant or other speakers.

Um if you want to speak less, that's always welcome.

Um if you uh if someone else has said exactly what you feel, uh you can say they said it right.

I believe that too.

Um that works fine as well.

Uh at the end, the applicant has a chance to uh respond to uh some of the comments and uh during any of those comments uh the commission uh can ask questions of the speaker.

Uh so I think that covers it.

Um, we'll move along uh to 3B as it were.

Uh disclosure of Ex parte Communications.

Anyone had ex parte communications, count.

Yes, I did meet with uh representatives from Via Monte as well as with Signature Development Group to listen to their concerns.

What else?

I met with signature development group as well, the applicant.

Okay, and Commissioner Qualk.

I met with representatives from Via Monte as well as the signature development group.

And I met with uh representative from signature over coffee, indeed, um just once.

And um they emailed signature email me, and I did not meet with them.

Okay, very good.

Then um the first public hearing is on the Mitchell Town Homes Design Review.

Um I will note that if you are here for the Porsche item, uh rest assured that it will be a while before we get to it.

Um, you know, if you want to go out and uh walk around the block and check in from time to time, uh that might be uh uh a better time of your better use of your time than than sitting and waiting and getting anxious.

Um, okay, staff report.

Okay.

Good evening, Chair and uh members of the commission.

We are here tonight to consider the Mitchell Townhomes project that will be located within the Shade Lands Business Park.

Uh the application number is Y24026, and the applicant representing this project, Jonathan Fern and his team are here tonight, as am I, to answer any questions that you may have after the presentation.

And I believe I forgot to introduce myself, so Simmer Gill, a senior planner with the city, and um uh for fair warning, this is a multifaceted project with many parts.

So I appreciate your patience in advance.

If this pro presentation does run a little longer than usual, so I'll try my best to keep pace.

And um, so planning commission tonight um is looking to certify the environmental impact report and adoption of the mitigated monitoring and reporting program, as well as the project entitlements uh which consist of uh a major subdivision, design review, tree removal and tree drip line encroachment permit, um, as well as the density bonus uh waiver requests.

And uh just to quickly orient you with the site, uh it is zoned plan development with a general plan uh designation of business park.

Uh it does consist of a two-acre, uh 22-acre uh parcel that has 11 office buildings known as the Walnut Creek Executive Park, and the surrounding area, as you can see here, uh consists of commercial and office uses, and there are residential uses across the site uh area um on Shaylands, that's known as the Via Monte Senior Housing, and um on Oak on Mitchell Drive, we have the Oakmont Senior Housing that was recently approved, so uh we have it hasn't been built, but we have approved a housing project here.

And then further uh east um along Oak Grove, there are residential uses uh known as the Woodlands community.

And this is just a closer look at that of the site, the project site in question.

It is um outlined in that yellow, and um all of these buildings within that yellow outline um will be demolished for project construction.

Uh the adjacent parcels consist of a three-story um office building that is fronting Oak Grove Road, uh Bank of America at the corner of Shade Lands and Oak Grove, as well as the existing daycare.

These are all separate parcels and they are not a pro part of the project site, and they will remain.

So I think uh a point that I wanted to highlight is the uh building um, it does not extend on to the project site does not extend on to Oak Grove Road.

And here are just some site photographs really showing what those office buildings looks like the existing office buildings look like and existing access into the site from both Mitchell and Shade Lands, and in the middle I've incorporated included some photos that really just show what the existing office building looks like in relation to the Via Monte community across the street, uh oh.

Sorry, it's working just fine.

That's gonna be hard.

Can I get some technical assistance, please?

Yeah, the click clicker's not working, but I'll keep going while he figures that out.

So it does that.

Apologies for that.

Um I'll start up again.

So yeah, so here are the site site photographs of the existing office buildings on site that will be demolished.

And um before we get into the project, I really wanted to go over the background.

Um in October, on October 18th of 2023, a SB 330 application was submitted pursuant to the housing accountability act and the builders' remedy.

And on October 24th of 2023, the city's housing element was certified by HCD.

The application before you tonight was submitted six days prior to that certification.

And on April 9th of 2024, the formal planning application was submitted.

And from that time to May of 2025, there were multiple rounds of review revisions to deem the project complete.

And June 18th of 2025, the design review commission reviewed this project and provided advisory comments that they want the planning commission to consider tonight.

So here is a list of those comments.

The applicants team also has a presentation, so they will go in more detail how all of this has been addressed in the revised plans.

I'll just note that these all have been addressed with the exception of preserving more redwood trees on site.

But apart from that, they weren't able to protect any more.

And before we dive into the project details, I want to go over the various state housing laws that are being processed that this project is being processed under.

I will in the next few slides go through all of these.

So I'll start with the Housing Accountability Act, which essentially means that the city's review is limited for residential projects that meet all of the city's applicable objective standards.

So the project cannot be denied unless there are any specific health or safety impacts.

And SB 330 prevents cities from reducing the residential density or capacity or for applying any new standards after an application has been deemed complete.

And this project is being processed under SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act, as it does comply with the city's objective standards as well as the design standard.

And to deny such a project, the city would have to make specific findings that determine that the city had a substantially compliant and certified housing element at the time when the project was submitted.

And so that means it would need to be certified by HCD.

And given that this project has a plan development that refers to business park zoning standards, the city determined that in addition to those standards, the project should also align with the development standards of the most comparable residential zone, which is the multifamily, and it would fall within the range of the medium density multifamily development under the general plan designation.

As the applicant is proposing uh 19 dwelling units per acre, which falls within that range of 14 to 22 dwelling units per acre.

So that was considered to be the best fit.

And the last of the state laws that apply to this project is the state density bonus.

The applicant is requesting waivers and a total of 10 waivers and under a density bonus, the project is allowed to request those waivers to the development standards because it's providing affordable units.

The project is providing 55 low income units.

And the only way to deny the waiver would be if the city finds that there is substantial evidence that it would cause a specific health or safety impact that cannot be mitigated.

And now I'll uh dive into the project proposal.

The 422-unit multifamily development, it is a three-story townhouse with a mix of uh building types that consist of range from two plex all the way through sevenplex designs, have two-car garages and outdoor decks.

The units are arranged across 82 different buildings, and the height ranges from 38 to 40 feet.

There are a total of 955 parking spaces being provided.

And 542 new trees are being proposed as well as a central open centralized open space area.

The frontage improvements include four new street lights along Shadlands Drive and new sidewalks, 10-foot wide sidewalks on Mitchell Drive as well as Shadlands Drive.

And a roundabout and bike lane extensions that extend beyond the project site are proposed.

The roundabout location is at the intersection of Via Monte and Shadelands, and the bike lane extensions are along shadowens as well as on Mitchell Drive, and these folks extend beyond the project frontage.

And the roundabout is essentially it's it's been contemplated in the Shayland's multimodal plan that's been adopted by city council.

The city engineer did suggest it suggest it, but it's not required or needed for this project, but more uh in order to really provide safety enhancements, so it's not triggering it, but just to enhance the area.

The applicant agreed and uh stated that they would be providing that as part of this project, which we call off site community benefits, and the project is also preserving eight existing trees on site, and 449 tree removals are requested.

Of these 73 trees were already administratively approved by the city arborist due to the size species and the health of the trees.

The remaining 376 does require planning commission approval tonight.

And I wanted to point that none of these are highly protected species.

And although the project is being processed under the housing accountability and builders' remedy provisions, it is still subject to CEQA.

And the city did an analyze all environmental impacts that are across the CEQA appendix G categories that are listed here.

The project is also subject to the various entitlement findings and have been addressed as part of attachment two of your packet tonight.

So that would be the subdivision map findings, the design review findings as well as the tree removal findings, and compliance with the city's objective design standards.

And I'll just quickly run through the timeline of events really just to show that we started in 2024 with this where the CEQA process was initiated, the notice of preparation was issued, and then the public scoping meeting was held in December 11th of 2024.

And from that time, as you see to today's date, it's been over a year.

So in that process, we did the draft EIR circulation for the 45-day mandatory public review period that started on August 21st.

However, given the interest from the community, we did extend that to November 20th, an additional 45 days to really get that additional community feedback and give them more time to review the draft DIR.

And then, of course, the comments on that public comments received were incorporated into the environmental analysis, and the final EIR was submitted to the state clearing house on January 29th.

The EIR was posted on the city's website, and so tonight we are requesting that certification of the EIR.

And the CEQA topics with less than significant or no impacts, or no where no mitigation was required are listed on this slide.

And then the CEQA topics with potential impacts, but with mitigation measures included, would result to a less than significant level, are listed on this slide.

And mitigation monitoring and reporting is included as a condition of approval, and it does require compliance with that.

And there are no impacts that would remain significant or unavoidable.

And I also wanted to highlight the common theme of comments received.

They're listed on this slide.

All of these comments have been received and were responded to as part of the EIR, which is included as your packet tonight.

And we do have the environmental consultant with us and could also go over any of the conclusions that came out of this.

And the existing general plan designation is business park and the zone is plan development.

So there are no residential standards.

However, under the HAA, if the current zoning or general plan does not allow that use, alternative standards that enable the project may be used.

So in this case, the applicable best fit standards do apply, and we apply the M2 standards.

This is just again another look at the the base dense, the density proposed for this project.

As mentioned earlier, it falls within that 14.1 to 22 dwelling units per acre, proposing 19 dwelling units per acre.

55 low-income units will be provided, that is 13%, which does exceed the city's 7% inclusionary housing requirement.

And because they're providing low income, they are entitled to receive unlimited waivers.

However, the applicant is requesting 10 standards that would physically preclude the feasibility of the housing development.

And here is the table that is also included in the agenda package staff report.

This really outlines the 10 requested waivers, and as mentioned earlier, M2 is just the best fit, but the actual zoning for the site is the PD that refers to business park, and I'll give an example.

The business park zone requires a minimum 25-foot front setback.

The applicant is providing 10 feet.

Another example is number five, which is a minimum 20 foot side setbacks required.

The applicant is providing 10 feet, and the 10 feet is actually consistent with the what a multifamily development typically requires for a side setback.

And now moving into the tentative map, the subdivision will create 82 lots and 49 parcels.

That essentially shows that access to site is from Mitchell and Shade Lands Drive, and then those accesses then connect to the internal roadways of the development.

So the access is also broken up into the based on neighborhood type, which I'll show you in the next slide.

And the project will be completed in two phases.

And here is a detailed architectural site plan.

There are seven building types, and as mentioned earlier, there are two neighborhoods.

Let's see.

So there's two architectural building styles, and that's neighborhood one and neighborhood two.

So access to neighborhood one is gained from Mitchell Drive, and access to neighborhood two is gained from Shadelands Drive, and there is no cut-through traffic for any vehicles.

However, there is a pedestrian walkway connection from Mitchell Drive all the way down to Shadlands for easy pedestrian accessibility.

And the townhomes consist of four four floor plans each, with which is a total of eight floor plans, and uh neighborhood one has six building types.

Neighborhood two has four larger building types.

Excuse me, it's going to say one.

Thank you.

It's a lot to speak.

And then the unit sizes range from 1,288 to 2157, consists of two to four bedroom townhomes.

Two car garages are included in each unit.

Plan one in the neighborhood two has a tandem garage design.

And each town home or neighborhood, which is neighborhood one and two, does feature distinct architectural styles that are identified as style A and style B with a total of four color schemes per neighborhood.

As you can see, these are the four proposed for neighborhood one, and then the four below proposed for neighborhood two, and we also have them up behind the design review secretary, neighborhood one and neighborhood two.

The far left is neighborhood one, right behind the secretary is neighborhood one.

Thank you.

And here are some uh renderings uh that again I'll let the applicant's uh team go more into detail, um, but the top left uh is essentially at the corner of at the intersection of Via Monte and Shade Lens, and it also shows that rendering of the proposed roundabout.

Thank you.

And I'm not gonna spend too much time in the floor plans, but I did want to highlight the key differences.

So this is neighborhood one floor plan.

Um neighborhood one plan one, which is shown here, is the only two-bedroom design.

Uh, the other two through four four plans are all three bedroom designs.

Uh the layout is essentially the same.

Each unit includes a rear garage, an entryway, and a flex optional room on the ground floor, and main living areas, kitchen, great room, and an outdoor deck on the second floor, and on the third floor are the bedrooms and bathrooms.

And here are the two architectural styles for neighborhood one.

Um so as you can see here are the recessed entries with the private balconies and the large windows, and uh neighborhood one is essentially a little more um, I would say it features more modern expressive palette compared to neighborhood two.

Uh it consists of the vertical board and batten siding in stucco, and then there's uh stone veneer and metalwood accent used as accents.

And this is neighborhood two floor plan.

Um again, I'm just highlighting the key chain, the key differences.

And plan one is the design that mentioned earlier, has a tandem design, so there is no bedroom on the ground floor, but there is a bedroom on the second floor in um plan one of neighborhood two, and the remaining plans are all essentially the same where they um have a bedroom on the ground floor, and um plan four of neighborhood two being the largest one, has four bedrooms.

And here is uh neighborhood two, again the two architectural styles that would be applied, consists of board and batten siding and stucco.

Also, includes horizontal horizontal fiber cement lap sighting as well as stone veneer accents at the base and the metal accents.

Uh, one thing that is different here is the larger the use of the wood accent in larger areas.

Um, this I would say is more of a craftsman style character compared to the more modern, and a little more toned down color palette.

But overall, the massing of uh both neighborhood one and two are very similar.

And now moving on to the landscaping plan.

Um the applicant is proposing 542 new trees that consist of a range from 24 inch to 36 inch box and also preserving the existing seven redwood trees that are located within the central area, and an existing oak tree that's located further to the west um property line.

And um, in addition, um I have listed here all of the major trees that will be planted along the project frontier frontages or the perimeter of the site, and then in addition to that, there's several more trees that will be scattered throughout the site.

And here's just a closer look at that central open space amenities area.

And again, highlighted in yellow with the star are the existing redwood trees that are being preserved.

And uh the last request uh before you tonight is the tree removals.

Uh, there are a total of 449 uh trees being removed.

The city arborists did approve 73 of these due to the size, species, and health.

And the remaining 376 does require planning commission's approval.

And as noted earlier, none of these are highly protected species in the city's tree ordinance.

And again, just showing where those existing trees that are being preserved are located.

And there are 31 offsite trees.

And there are conditions of approval for that, as well as if there's any undersized tree that's less than nine inches in diameter.

And I believe there's several off site trees that are less than nine inches in diameter over here.

They could be removed without a permit, but there are conditions of approval essentially documenting all of this information.

And with that, the planning staff does recommend that the planning commission adopt the resolution certifying the EIR, which and the MMRP, which is included as attachment one, and the second resolution, which approves the project entitlements is included as attachment two of your packet, and the entitlements are listed on the slide.

And for the record, city did receive a number of additional comments, both in support and in opposition.

And these were included in the agenda packet as attachment seven.

And with that I do conclude my presentation, but I'm happy to answer any questions that we also have several members of the city team, the planning public works, traffic and engineering, along with the First Carbon Solutions Environmental Consultant who did assist in preparing the EIR.

And they can also speak to a lot of the public comments that were raised surrounding the project alternatives, the geometric hazard, schools and safety, and they also had uh prepared a which was part of the packet, the additional traffic analysis that was done.

And of course, the applicants team, Jonathan Fern, I believe, has a presentation for you tonight as well.

And yeah, I'm I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Yeah, questions from the planning commission for staff.

Oh, I have a couple.

Yeah.

Um the uh the waivers 10 of them, I think you said um and for most of those, the justification and the constraint on the planning commission is because it would uh without the waiver, the density would have to be reduced.

So the with the density bonus, uh there's a certain number of units that they're entitled to to propose and build.

Um, uh if there's a waiver requested or proposed that um without which that density would have to be reduced, that's sufficient to prevent us from uh not or to keep us uh from denying that waiver.

Yes, we so the waivers have the same health or safety findings that the city would need to make.

So unless any of the waivers requested are resulting in some sort of impact, uh the city cannot uh deny it, and yes, it would by denying the waiver, it would essentially result in impacts or feasibility of the project and reduction in density.

Just to clarify, I'm clarifying this in city attorney.

Um the standard for a waiver is that it physically precludes the project.

Um the statute says that it's at the density that's permitted by density bonus plus with the all the concessions and waivers combined.

And then there's case law that says you the city would have to grant the waiver, it precludes it at the density and design that's proposed by the applicant.

Um so that gives the um the consideration for the city about when you know something can be waived.

Um and then there's the findings that Simmer mentioned about denying waivers and and concessions.

Okay, thank you.

Um let's see.

And doesn't have a lot of room.

Whereas one which I gather is also nearby is um would love to have more students.

Um is that a question of uh who makes that decision?

Is that that the school districts themselves or is it uh that's between the school district and the developers team, I believe, and the city doesn't weigh in on that.

Is it uh dependent upon the the boundaries of the school district?

In other words, if if this parcel is within one school district boundary, is it default that they would go to that school district?

So I I might defer that question to the applicants team again because I'll take it up to that.

And I I can weigh on a little a little bit.

We she's right.

This the city really does not have much in the say of where those boundaries are, but we do uh send all this material out to the districts for their comments on these.

And and I I that's my understanding that we received no comments from any school district.

Correct.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Can I just add to that my understanding as a former member of the Mount Diablo school board, um, is that the map um that the school district currently has is based on um this area not having housing.

So I don't think that we that the public can use those maps if this uh development goes forward, the I believe the school district will need to determine what schools have space and uh probably do a demographic study to be able to determine which schools.

Um, but yeah, this is this is not a a city decision to be made here tonight.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Commissioner Cloud.

Hi, thank you for all the work uh that went into this uh presentation.

I have a CEQA question or uh mitigation monitoring and reporting program question.

So uh it was stated that there were seven different areas that required action through the mitigation and monitoring plan, and it wasn't really specified how does that work and who's accountable for the measurement and where does that get tracked and reported, and so I just want to quick overview of how MMRPs work uh so that everyone understands what the follow-through is, etc.

So I'm not saying the specific actions, but how does it work?

How do we track it?

How do we monitor and make sure that these effects work?

Yeah, I believe the MMRP document does indicate does it fall under the purview of planning or building, and this is usually done during the entire um the construction or permitting phase.

So when the project comes in um as a building permit or site development permit, we look at it at it as part of that.

So we do the city monitors it.

I could I could add to that.

Um so what most of most if not all of the mitigation measures um that are in the MMRP are construction related.

I don't know that there's any operational long-term.

Yeah.

Are they all construction related?

I believe it's all construction.

And so those are in the the program includes who's responsible, when those things are supposed to be done, whether it's a long-term mitigation or an observation or uh the the fuel you use in your in your in your and in your equipment, uh the idling times, things like that.

Um there, I don't know if it's in this MMRP, but oftentimes it's roosting birds and bats to look out for that kind of thing.

And there are assignments for who's responsible to do this, and of course, to report it.

And a lot of the stuff, especially construction related, is um discussed in a pre-construction meeting, which we always hold between the um the developers team and the city's uh development services team thank you very much yep questions commissioner pounds thank you um uh a few questions that came up had to do with builders remedy and whether it actually applies to this project or not um I just want to make sure we're clear here tonight and with the community um that we are not as the planning commission determining whether this is a builder's remedy project or not that's correct commission isn't determining it it is a builder's remedy project um and I can have um the city attorney um weigh in if needed yeah I can um clarify that question and so the the asn't provided in a staff report in order for the commission to deny the project or impose conditions that make the project infeasible there are certain findings that must be made um and one of the findings or two of them relate to a substantially compliant housing element there is new statute that went into effect in 2025 that speaks to the issue when a housing element is considered to be substantially compliant um the statute provides that for the purposes of buildos remedy projects review that the housing element is substantially compliant when at the time of a preliminary application submittal under SBC 30 um that either HCD or a court has certified it and as um the staff also provides that when the project submitted the aspect 30 preliminary application um the city's housing element was not certified by HD was certified six days later and so that is the that is the status of um the housing element issue um and the commission is looking at these facts um in terms of making the findings or not and that is the decision um part of the decision for that that aids your decision tonight commissioner moran that thank you so I don't know if this question is best for you or for the traffic um expert that we have here uh some of the public comments touched on uh the issue of increased cars coming in and out I guess my question is uh if somebody could maybe walk the group through the concept of how the traffic is approached the issue of that right because on its face you would say there's not much there now there's gonna be a lot more cars coming therefore that might be an issue but that's not in my understanding exactly how it's sort of looked at um it's my understanding that it's more based on what is legally allowed or what could be there and then compared to that what project is my on the right track yeah we can call the um consultant or with W trans they're available tonight to answer any questions related to traffic okay did you chair needing did we want to okay great I think that's you can give us a little uh VMT slash LOS I could I could do all those things if you want I'll be uh brief however um good evening my name's Mark Spencer I'm a senior principal with W Trans we worked uh with first carbon on behalf of the city to prepare the environmental documentation it's actually two transportation reports that are included in your packet one is part of the EIR the CEQA documentation itself and then there's separate non-sequit traffic operations report we do those separately now a few years ago that changed so previously many of you have looked at transportation reports you look at intersection delay and level of service and all those things that's taken out of CEQA now those aren't part of environmental impacts.

But they're still operational effects that we need to look at.

So to go to the first uh question that was brought up, quickly, how do you walk through this?

What we have now is a site, and when we did traffic counts and we looked at the area, we did our you know in the field surveys, the office was about 80% occupied.

And we said, okay, that's what's going away.

It's not fully occupied, we get that.

It could be, and we say, okay, those trips are gonna go away.

And then we're gonna add in the proposed project trips.

And what's the difference in that in that number of trips?

Well, the it gets confusing because the proposed project actually generates fewer trips than the office development, the office development as it currently is at its current occupancy level.

However, there is a change in the traffic patterns.

You have an office development, people are coming to work in the morning.

So they're coming like into the area, and then in the afternoon they leave the area.

Residential development, it's the opposite.

Okay, you have people living there, they're gonna leave and go to work in the morning and come back in the afternoon.

So we evaluate what are those changes, not only just in numbers but in traffic patterns, during a morning commute period, during an afternoon compute commute period, and what is the effect of that?

And that's what the basis of our analysis is.

And that's it, that's a standard practice that not only the city follows, but the county, Caltrans, and others.

That's a that's a standard practice, and that's where we came up with our conclusions on that.

We did in the non-sequo traffic operational report, we did look at several nearby intersections.

We looked at roadways, we looked at what happens on Ignacio Valley Boulevard, and we looked at how those trips are distributed.

And again, just uh I know there's a comment about well, you know, you didn't look at Treat Boulevard.

Well, treat actually would get fewer vehicles under this plan because of the change in traffic, and also how much would come to and from the north.

Um, and we look at where jobs are located, where schools are services, and um it also considers just you know people using BART.

Are they going to the BART station?

Are they driving to their jobs, whether those are in Walnut Creek or Oakland or San Francisco, San Jose, and what have you?

Question about VMT.

Now, that's vehicle miles traveled.

And in the last five, six years, that's become the standard metric that we have to use in CEQA documents, so in an EIR or something like that.

And vehicle miles traveled.

Um I like to put it this way.

Previously, when we analyzed a development, we'd say, Well, what's the effect, what's the impact of this development on the traveling public?

Is it gonna make things you're gonna have to like take longer to get from point A to point B?

VMT, we kind of turned that 180 degrees on its head.

We said, Well, now, what is the effect on traffic and distances of traffic and how far people travel and what does that really mean?

Because that's kind of having a much broader effect, okay, not just point by point by point, but in the city, in the region.

So if you have vehicle miles traveled, it says, Well, if someone works, if someone lives in a in in Walnut Creek and they work in Oakland, and let's say that's 20 miles away, they drive to Oakland, and however they get there, if they drive there, they drive 20 miles there and they drive 20 miles back, that's 40 vehicle miles traveled.

Okay, and in very simple exercise in looking at that.

Let me take well how many people in this development, uh, how many adults, where are they gonna work, and you start looking at all the different VMT metrics.

The way to evaluate that is you compare that to other types of development, and also what is the standard in Walnut Creek?

What is the standard in Contra Costa County?

And the goal for every new development, whether it's this or anything else, is are you at that level that is um the average for that area, and you now have to have a goal that is 15% below that.

Every development comes in, you have to do better.

That's a standard.

That's what the the state mandates, and that's what everyone is following from the counties to the cities, those are the threshold criteria.

This area, and a lot of Walnut Creek happens to be in a lower VMT area than a good deal of the county.

The reason for that is we have transit services, we have bus services with enough frequency, and we have BART, we have availability of transportation services.

So, yes, most of us drive.

That's that no one's no one's denying that, but we have these opportunities to reduce trips and trip lengths because of these other types of services.

This project happens to be in an area with a lower VMT ratio than the region.

It is already at an area.

So if you put housing in here, you're doing better than say if you're putting housing in Antioch or Brentwater Discovery Day.

No knock against those areas.

Okay.

It's just that we have more services here, so it's a lower VMT area.

So this is a good place to put housing in terms of regional transportation effect.

And that then relates to things like air quality and other things as well.

And that's why that's looked at.

So I'll I'll stop there unless there's other questions regarding transportation.

I'm happy to answer them now or later, if if it's appropriate.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Vice Chair Meeting.

Um I think it would be important, Claire, to because there's been a there's always constantly changes in housing legislation.

So I wanted to bring up two things.

Um the certification of housing element, um, there are still so you brought up the whole point of uh cities or jurisdictions cannot self-certify, and that's important because that was passed.

But one thing that I think is important to know is that there are still counties and cities out there that still have yet to have the certified housing element.

Um so that so that is one thing.

Um HCD required it in January, late at the end of January 2023, and soon thereafter the city of Walnut Creek, if I'm not mistaken, got their certification.

So they were City of Walnut Creek wasn't was not one of the last.

It was it was pretty we did it, we did a very good job.

That that the that description is correct.

Um the housing elements statute provides for timelines when you have to adopt a housing element, and the city's met that the city actually um adopted a little bit earlier than the deadline.

Um and the statute also requires you to submit the adopted element to ACD for certification.

Um and the city, um, as you mentioned, uh, vice chair that the city achieved that um, you know, while there are other jurisdictions that still you know remained are still right, outstanding.

And then the other thing that I think is important to look at this because it's interesting because builders' remedy has actually been a part of the housing accountability act since 1982, if I'm not mistaken, so for 44 years, um, but can you explain to us because the original submission was part of the original builders' remedy in the 1982 HAA, but then it subsequently changed to AB 1893, and one thing important about that law is that it codified minimum and maximum densities to protect cities from having what I like to call as the Miami Tower.

Um can you kind of explain?

Because the applicant did change to that new law, which did then subsequently restrain them from putting a giant Miami Tower.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Um the statute builders army statute, that's correct, that it was a part of the HAA for quite some time and is not new legislation in that term.

And the statute that I mentioned earlier where it um kind of codified when a housing on this consensus are substantially compliant, also amended um the builders statute to provide that previously um a project could qualify for a build of remedy if it provided for 20% um affordability.

Um, and now the new law um which is already in effect provides for different types of affordability.

So one aspect of the project, um, I think the staff report mentions this is that the affordability is allowed to be 13% for um low income, which the project is providing.

Um at the same time the law does provide for um maximum densities um and requires minimum, requires a project to meet minimum density if the parcel has that.

Um in this case, there isn't one, but if there were the project has complied with that.

And it also provides for maximum densities, which is based on one, the city's housing element minimum density that is determined appropriate for lower income.

And for Walnut Creek, that's 30 units per acre.

So it's it's based on that, but it's also based on whether or not the city is in what's called a high resource census tract area, which Wanna Creek is within one.

And in that situation, the law provides for a 50% density on top of the 30.

But all of that to say that we've reviewed that and the project is not exceeding those maximums.

And then last but not least, and this is something important because I know that a lot of folks in Walnut Creek affordable housing is important to them and the type of affordable housing.

Can you also explain the law also required a certain um look and feel of those homes in comparison to the market rate?

The village army taste you does require that you have kind of equal comparable distribution.

So essentially the market rate and the affordability units are kind of dispersed evenly, and they're kind of looking the same.

And so, you know, the applicant can speak to this, but I believe that's that's the case here.

Thank you.

Very good.

That case I will uh open public hearing and invite the applicant to uh present the application, and you have 15 minutes.

Thank you.

All right.

Okay, um well, thank you, Chair.

Uh commissioners, um, I am uh Jonathan Fern.

I'm senior vice president of element for Signature Development Group.

And on behalf of uh our team today, um we are happy to present the Mitchell Drive Townhomes project for your consideration.

Uh per your request, Chair, I won't spend too much time on these uh slides.

I think Spimmer did a really good job of describing where it is uh and what it is uh from an existing uh use standpoint.

Um but just to give some high level um uh site plan highlights.

The project is a 422 total townhomes, uh a little over two acres of publicly accessible open space scattered upon that kind of uh east-west central spine there.

Uh we will be incorporating a number of the um components of the Shadowlands multimodal plan is similar discussed, one being um the 10-foot wide sidewalks on Mitchell and Shadlands where none exists today.

Uh also bike lanes as well, uh, and we'll talk about uh the extension of those bike lanes a little later in the in the um my presentation.

Uh as Summer mentioned, uh we are uh retaining seven redwoods again in that central open space, uh increasing the tree canopy from what exists today, 488 trees to 542 trees, again, not taking down any trees that are uh highly protected under your code.

Uh we have 11 uh guest parking spaces scattered through the internal uh uh roadway network there, and then 30 bike spaces also kind of coupled along the open spaces, was we just talked about 55 units, 13 percent uh will be available to low-income households.

It's about double the city code.

Uh, and then this takes a significant step towards uh City Water Creek's arena requirements, six percent of all of the low income uh units that are required will be dealt with in this project, as well as you know, the 16% of all the above moderate um units that are required.

Um we do have the two entrances on Shade Lens and Mitchell as simmer uh highlighted, uh reason we didn't want uh cut through traffic from Mitchell to shade lands uh for automobiles, but again we do have uh cut through for pedestrians.

And again, Zimmer talked about this, two different neighborhoods, two different product types, just to have a uh uh a wider spectrum of availability of product uh for sale, uh, and we'll be doing these in two different phases.

So you can see the phases are uh the eastern portion of the property uh that will go first, the western property will go uh side of the property will go second.

Uh and we will be having both product types in each phase again to have a greater offering for sale, and also we're doing this in phases because we certainly don't want to we certainly know we can't absorb 422 townhomes uh all at once.

Just to take a step back about um how we uh looked at programming this, kind of to the point about not putting in Miami Towers.

Uh we took a look at what was around us and wanted to do something that was contextual.

Uh so kind of starting at the top of the of the um page there at the at the graphic uh the 2800 uh Mitchell uh CCRC, the community continuing care retirement community that stands at about three to four stories, about 40 feet along Mitchell.

The remaining um building within the Walnut Creek Executive Park between us and Oak Grove is three stories, about 30-35 feet.

The Via Monte Senior Community to our south is four stories and 40 feet, and then the Shade Land Sports Mall, the post-acute facility is 30 and 24 feet respectively.

Uh, to give a sense our townhomes to the top of the living space, the third floor of the of each townhome is a little under 30 feet, um, and then we have roof articulation that takes us up to about 38 to 40.

So we feel that we're, you know, um kind of hitting the kind of the bullseye here between what's around us, and that was important, and then from a density standpoint, the shape of the via Monte is about 50 units to the acre.

Uh the um the uh 2800 Mitchell is about 39 units to the acre.

We're at 19, uh, so we're symphonic below those from a density standpoint.

So uh we just feel like this is kind of positioned very well from uh uh from a from a land use standpoint.

Um just want to give a quick um uh nod to site contact.

We did want to create a um, you know, uh uh uh a frontage, residential frontage along both Shadens and Mitchell.

Um but we are uh I know there's some concerns about how set how far the units were set back.

As mentioned, we have a 10 foot wide uh sidewalk along both Shadens and Mitchell, then we're 10 foot beyond that for our setback.

So we're a minimum of 20 feet uh from the from the face of curb, and kind of extending back to 25 in some areas.

So just want to make that uh make that clear.

That said, we did we knew we didn't nail it when we first designed the projects, and so we've had a number of conversations, uh presentations throughout uh the time that we've been at this with community groups, uh interested parties, stakeholders, uh, the DRC, and so one of the examples of that is the DRC back in June.

They asked us to take a look at our central open space and see if there was a way uh to make it a little more usable.

And what I mean by that is that as you can see with these um blue arrows, we had kind of on-grade stormwater detention facilities that were breaking up the usability of the open space.

And so they asked us if we could look at a different uh stormwater treatment system uh called Silva Cells, which are kind of below grade to make that central space a little more aggregated and usable.

And so we did that, and as you can see, we kind of tied that together with the uh the light green areas there.

So that's all connected now.

Uh we also, and this is an example of what that would look like when it's when it's built.

We look for other opportunities to do that as well at our dog park area, which is shown there on the circle on the right, uh, and our rain garden area, which is shown there on the left.

Uh, as you can see here again, we had these kind of larger stormwater detention areas, and then you can see now that we have changed that so that we have ability for a little more gathering space, a little more space for the dogs.

Everybody loves that.

Uh, and then um throughout all of this, we were able to get I believe it's 32 more trees in the site.

So we were obviously happy about that given the concern around trees.

Another um another thing that the DRC asked us to do was around pedestrian connectivity both through the site uh and for the residents themselves.

So the first thing Summer mentioned this is they wanted us to widen the central sidewalk from five feet to eight feet uh so it was a little more inviting for folks that don't live within the actual uh project itself, and then they wanted us to see if we could make a connection out to Oak Grove from the eastern side of our property, so it was a little easier for folks in the in the um in the community to migrate out to Oak Grove Road.

So we did that, not really shown here, but we are showing uh in this uh in this rendering here what we hope uh is a little more inviting and welcoming entry to the community for all to use.

In addition, we heard uh from a community member um that was looking at our N2 project.

It's like, why do you have your balconies facing basically the auto courts that are coming in to serve the garages?

It wouldn't be better to have those facing out uh to the streets or to the paseos, and uh we kind of scratched our head for a second, but thought you know that's actually a pretty good idea.

Um, and so we've incorporated that as you can see here on the top is what it looked like before, and then now we've changed it.

So we've put our balconies kind of on the front elevations, on the back before, um, to uh address that uh that very good comment, actually.

Talked a lot about safety improvements, we know about that.

Uh this is something that we certainly wanted to be uh part of the solution.

Uh so a couple things highlighted here.

One, uh we heard a concern about cars uh, you know, obviously, you know, speeding down uh shade lands, particularly coming off of Oak Grove Road.

So one of the things that we have worked with traffic on is putting a raised crosswalk where that um that aren't that excuse me, that yellow arrow is that will hopefully slow down cars to allow folks at the Via Monte Senior facility to make a left turn onto Shade Lands a little a little easier.

Um, and then also we talked about the roundabout.

Um so that's part of the Shade Lands multimodal plan that uh the city really wants to see implemented, and we felt we could be a part of that and install that traffic calming measure as well.

Addition, um, talked about bike lanes.

This is what we would ordinarily be required to put in uh just a result of our project.

It's bike lanes on your project frontage.

But again, in conversations with the city, it's important to extend those bike lanes.

So we've agreed to extend those bike lanes on the north side of Shade Lands all the way from Oak Grove to Wiggett, and on the south side of Shade Lands from uh North Via Monte to Wiggit, and then on uh Mitchell uh on both sides from our project frontage on the west all the way to Oak Grove Road.

Uh in addition to those community benefits that I just talked about, we're also committing to a monetary contribution for tramic traffic camera enhancements at Ignacio Valley and Via Monte.

We're contributing monetarily traffic camera enhancements at Oak Grove Road and the Costa Costa Bike Trail intersection, and then we're also contributing to median islands where the Contra Costa Bike Trail crosses Oak Grove Road, hopefully give a little bit of respite for folks that are crossing uh Oak Grove at that at that point.

Reason why we're doing that monetary contribution for the median islands because apparently on the south side you're in Walnut Creek, on the north side you are in Concord.

We didn't want to get in the middle of a kind of a bi-jurisdictional permitting process, so we felt that it was best that the city deal with that.

So that's the reason for that.

Just want to talk quickly about traffic.

I know we just talked about that.

Um, as you have seen from the traffic uh report, uh this this project does result uh in fewer car trips than what exists today.

Um that's based on a conservative 80% occupancy of the park, which is what it was when we submitted.

But I do understand and recognize that that doesn't that doesn't necessarily comport uh with what folks are kind of seeing on the street.

Uh but I do want to go through a quick timeline here.

We all know what the COVID pandemic did back in 2020, emptied out a lot of office parks, this one included.

Uh, but the project was purchased by the current owner uh in 2022, and as you would think, uh they were purchased it with the intention of fully occupying it.

Uh, but what happened is a SB 330 application for this project uh was turned in about a year later.

We turned in our farm application a year after that, and then we're here today.

Uh all this is to say is that that's six years, um, and if you've lived at the Via Monte residence for six years or less, this is what you would see as reality.

Um, but what has happened is that we have the current owner has not tenanted the site or have made an effort to tenant the site because of this ongoing application.

So somewhat ironic that the application is actually somewhat responsible for what people are seeing uh today.

But we do feel uh as mentioned by uh the gentleman at W Trans that this is a great place for housing.

Uh we're already uh seeing a residential uses uh in the uh Shade Lands Business Park right now.

Over the last 10 to 15 years.

They have been working to diversify the business park.

But um, as you can see, as you all know, there are um you know grocery stores within walking distance, the sports mall within walking distance, uh, schools, whatever you know, a lot of different things within walking distance of the site.

Uh, so we really feel that um it's a pretty good thing to put housing here.

Uh just to wrap up, uh we've been at this for like it's like I said, almost excuse me, two and a half years uh starting in October of 2023, went number of rounds with the city.

Uh, year later got deemed complete, addressed all their comments, and then for the last um half of this year or last year, excuse me, have been addressing comments in the EIR, and then we're here this evening.

So with that, I will uh take any comments or questions and um look forward to discussion.

Thank you.

Questions, comments for the applicant.

If I could ask one.

Um I do want to say thank you so much for the presentation.

It was nice to have additional detail about the project hearing from the developer.

Um my understanding with the plans is that the um in addition to the main um pedestrian sidewalk that's gonna pass through the middle, that there were going to be two others, one on the west side of the property and one on the east, and because this project is being developed in two phases.

I realize now that as phase one is built, the eastern walkthrough would be the one that would be available to residents and other people passing through first, and the central walkway would not be available until the second booth is completed around 2030.

Yeah, that's correct.

Um, but we will obviously allow for pedestrian migration through on that right side um walkway there.

Um so yeah, we will be building that out as we go forward.

But that is correct.

Um does it follow does the pedestrian path through the eastern side follow the main drives, or is it more towards the edge of the property?

How do you uh oh can I use oh there we go?

So it comes up here and then you cross, and then it comes through the the right next to the dog park, and then it comes up here, and then you just walk out straight.

So it's basically entering here, kind of jogging here, and then going straight up.

Oh, so you would kind of start across right across from this the crosswalk from Via Monte?

Correct.

And make your way through.

Okay.

All right.

And a question about the mitigation measures.

Yep.

Um there's uh my count 16 plus some submeasures.

Um pretty significant.

Uh are there any that you uh find are uh going to be particularly difficult?

Do you think you are you know able to within the context of a construction so far to to uh complete all the mitigation measures?

No, I mean we've reviewed the mitigation measures.

Um, you know, a lot of them are are best practices and just how you know you um would construct a property.

Um, but no, we we've agreed to them and we understand them and we're fine with all of them.

Other questions?

We should count.

One of the suggestions along the way was thinking about families living here and whether there was a play area for them.

I don't believe you mentioned that in your review tonight.

Yeah, the play area there, good question.

The player there is is shown in the in the blue.

Um, so yes, we did um insert that per the design review committee.

They mentioned that, so we did put that in.

Yes, so we'll have a play area.

Is there an exhibit where you show?

Maybe I missed it where the affordable is located.

We do have an exhibit that shows that as part of our plan set.

I don't have that here.

All that is to say is that we have uh dispersed the uh affordable units throughout the project.

So we're not aggregating them in any one area, corner, whatever we're spreading them out per plan and per plan type and that type of thing.

Is this gonna be a I'm I'm slightly confused with your phasing because it the looks like you're creating four parcels, but then are you doing two large lot final maps?

Correct.

Yeah, to land bank the phase two, or just sell it off.

So we have we actually have we we have we're in contract for these two phases.

We are the the four lot subdivision I think you're looking at um is for conveyance purposes in case we need to subdivide even further, but we are in contract to take down phase one and then um a couple of years later phase two the part the part that's confusing to me is that usually when you have two large lot because you're basic because all these are gonna be condo.

Correct.

Is um I understand that for absorption for 122 units is a lot.

Yes.

It would have been nice in your phasing plans to show that each phase is stand alone, and I couldn't in all of the vesting tender maps and see and CBG's a fabulous civil engineer, and they probably have already thought about this.

Yeah, I'm assuming.

I just can't see it.

Like it you usually, or I guess is phase one fully standalone from C3 infrastructure by IC is are you the civil engineer?

Yeah, yes, it is.

Um I would think that that would be something important to show for us as city as a city.

There is a in the in the plan set, there is a phasing, there's a phase one diagram that does show that the phase one stands alone.

Uh we then also had to prove to the city that we had adequate parking in phase two, uh, because phase two was going to remain and those buildings are going to remain as well the the office buildings will still remain active while phase two while phase one is being instruct constructed.

I can't remember the actual page number.

Apologize.

No, yeah, I I'm looking at it.

So and I I think that the it was kind of in the background for the utilities, and so I wasn't I couldn't tell like is your C three standalone?

It is for this phase.

Yes.

Okay, okay.

Everything's yeah, they can stand completely separately.

Got it.

Thank I'll probably have more.

Thank you so much.

Yeah.

No problem.

Commissioner Strongman, Commissioner Count.

Oh, going back to the affordable housing, how long do they remain affordable?

I believe it's 55 years.

Uh oh, I think it's 45 for ownership.

45 for ownership.

And at that point, they've come market rate.

They do.

That's the that's the law.

Thank you.

Commissioner Count.

Just a follow-up question on the phasing.

Um, did you is it possible or did you consider uh reversing it to have phase two happen first, given the feedback from the community about being directly across from Via Monte, um to do phase two first.

Is that feasible?

It's just unfortunate that's not how we're in contract to purchase to purchase the property.

So we have uh purchase and sale agreements for both phases, and one is going before the other.

So that's kind of the restrictive the restricting aspect of this.

Yeah.

Might as well.

Um a couple of can you do can you describe more Silva cells just because they're pretty interesting concept, right?

They provide detention and retention in underground chambers that are but you do it.

I don't want to do it.

Oh boy.

I I don't know if I want to do it.

Um, you know, that was a very smart ass from the DRC.

So I think it's worth it and it's costly.

Yes.

So thank you.

I mean, thank you for the question.

So, you know, typically um stormwater retention or detention is done kind of on grade and and below grade.

Um so you have these kind of basins that if you look at the the um the orchard Shopping center, you can see them in the kind of the parking lot uh where you know you have water that drains in and then percolates down.

Silva cells um are kind of a unique system uh where they're kind of like empty Legos, I guess is the best way to really describe them, and you put them uh you you put them under the ground and then you put you know soil on top of them, um, and then you have your you know your your grass, your sod on top of that, and then as it as you can steer storm water to the silva cells, and then the then water percolates through the silva cells down um and and gets treated that way, but it all takes place kind of under ground.

Um, and you the beauty of it is that you're able to actually program things on top of it.

Um but yes, it is an added expense because you're putting in a layer that's on the ground, you have to dig it out to to to install it, so there is a uh a premium for it, but that's and I can if you would like it better.

I you know, we can't.

I mean, the reason why I brought it up is because you look at the amount of trees, which I I read it constantly, and the city of Walnut Creek sustainability is of utmost importance to us.

Is it's one of the measures that our city council always puts as a priority.

But the one interesting thing about Silva Cells having designed them myself is the fact that it requires, unlike bioretention basins, it actually requires more trees.

That's correct.

That's right.

Yep.

That's correct.

Which is important because we need to try to get back as many trees as we possibly can, and then those will subsequently write um, it's the the that system almost provides the irrigation for those trees because it's in the underground chambers.

And I to me that that was important because of the amount of trees that are coming out.

The other thing that I was gonna ask about was was there an intentionality of a way the way how you um specifically how you um designed whether the units were facing out or in on shade lands in consideration of Viamonte.

Well, we certainly wanted it to feel like a residential neighborhood.

So we didn't want to like turn our back to it because obviously these things are these these units are uh you know are rear loaded in essence, so you have to approach them from the rear for your car.

The garage doors are in the rear.

So we didn't want to have a rear to have the Via Monte residents looking at garage doors.

Uh we also didn't really want them to be looking at uh the size of the units either, because that's you know, that's you know, there's utility boxes and things of that nature, so that's not the best uh elevation.

Um so you know, we felt like putting the front uh elevation was putting our best foot forward, and it just makes it feel like a residential neighborhood because that's where you have you know houses facing each other, so it made the most sense.

Also, if they are kind of jogged, then you know you run the risk of having those um alleyways that you know be kind of vectors for cars coming in at night and shining their lights into the Via Monte residence.

So having the way that they're designed in this way uh prevents all of that.

Thank you.

What's that?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Uh I'll open it up to uh public now.

And uh again remind you that you each have uh two minutes.

What we will do is the secretary will uh call out the name of people on the card.

He's got all the cards there.

Um, if you if you have not submitted a card and you wish to speak, the cards are up in the back there.

You can I can hand it to one of the staff.

Uh he'll give uh two or three names if your name is called.

If you're not the initial speaker, just line up behind so we can move through people uh quickly.

I'm gonna call up three names at a time.

If you would like the the first person would be up, please uh make state your name if you'd like, and then um if the the second and third would cue behind, that would be great.

Um I've got a request from Mary Steiner for a list, which we're going to do.

I've got most of the names with the exception of one in cards, and we'll go down that list first, which leads to Mary Steiner, please.

Wayne Morris and Lori Reich.

Jonathan, you're much taller than I am.

Okay, I think I got it here.

Good evening, commissioners, and thank you very much for taking the time to hear us.

I'm Mary Sty Steiner, resident of Viamonte Senior Living, situated as you've heard tonight, directly across the street, across Shayland Drive from the proposed development.

Let me start by saying that a townhome project can be an asset to Walnut Creek and to the neighborhood while being a significant contributor addressing to addressing our housing challenges.

I am not NIMBY.

However, the project as proposed is just too dense.

It could be a substantially greater asset to the surrounding community and its residents if it incorporated more open space, more green space and shade, and greater setbacks.

This could be accomplished with a very modest decrease in unit density, but would yield a disproportionate disproportionately large improvement in lifestyle and aesthetic benefits to future residents and to the surrounding neighborhood.

Emergency access, that's a big one, emergency access for us, adversely affecting air quality, the removal of so many large and productive trees, the lack of setbacks, detracting from the neighborhood sense of place, and the wildlife that will be affected.

The report provides little if any mitigation in these issues.

Please require the developer to mitigate some of our concerns.

Our original comment letter on the draft EIR provided pages of mitigation measures that many of my neighbors and I would find acceptable.

Please review that document before deciding on the project as it currently stands.

Thank you.

And I have 10 seconds left.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Wayne Morris, please.

Hello, commissioners and staff.

My name's Wayne Morris.

I'm a resident of Viamonte, and I want to discuss the project's impact on biological resources.

To me, it's astounding and frightening how the 600-page EIR fails to address the greatest environmental threat that we face, climate change.

Everyone agrees that trees are the best way to combat climate change.

Trees pull carbon from the air and retain it.

They also help cool the planet.

Further, redwoods are superheroes in this regard.

It's been estimated that one redwood tree can absorb more carbon than an entire acre of a typical forest.

The EIR, however, would approve the destruction of 461 trees, including 96 redwoods, and replacing them with 542 saplings.

These are saplings.

They're 24 to 35 gallon trees.

I looked on Sloat's website, and they say trees in that size are four to six feet.

We're talking about 100 foot redwoods, 99 of them being destroyed and being replaced with a four to six uh foot sapling.

A statement would say a statement was made that this project will increase the tree canopies.

That is ridiculous.

A four-foot tree is not going to replace uh 100 foot tree.

I want to emphasize that the planning commission has the power to deny permits to cut down these mature trees.

You can preserve trees, you can protect the environment and still approve more houses.

Thank you for your attention.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Laurie Reich.

I'm also a resident of Viamonte.

My concern is basically for the people who will live there.

MTP has only small patches of green, less than 10% of the total acreage.

When I looked at it, there were no play areas for children or adults.

No picnic area or outdoor game spaces, clubhouse or swimming pool for 422 homes, potentially 1400 people, no places for residents to really gather.

The major areas of open space are primarily occupied by paved roads, sidewalks, and what we call at Viamonte bioswales.

I've never heard this term, this new system of underground.

So I'm glad to see that that change has taken place.

So basically, I'm concerned about the residents' quality of life.

Extensive research compares high amenity well-landscaped housing with green spaces, attractive design of social and recreational features to sterile or minimal environments, mainly consisting of buildings and pavement, and I'm sorry it still looks that way to me.

In studies across urban planning, environmental psychology, public health, and real estate economics.

Several consistent patterns emerge.

These studies demonstrate that living near green spaces and attractive landscaping is linked to improved mental and emotional well-being, including less stress, more happiness, and higher life satisfaction.

Green areas with mature trees provide restorative benefits that can decrease fatigue and stress while boosting overall quality of life.

Exposure to green space and residential areas has been associated with better cognitive performance for children.

Communal spaces can promote social interaction and a sense of community, encouraging neighbors to connect, and strengthening community ties, reducing isolation, and boosting neighborhood pride.

Housing developments with attractive landscaping and amenities tend to sell at higher prices.

Very quickly.

These studies show that well-designed public spaces like plazas, gardens, amenity areas, and gathering spots are essential for owners' well-being.

Please include these quality of life features in this project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next three are Dave Perkins, Steven Pritzker, and Mark Pearson.

Why don't you go with an excellent one?

Okay.

Hi, my name is Steven Pritzker.

I'm a resident of Viamonte.

The ER minimizes serious air quality risk for children and seniors living next to this site.

The report identifies a Montessori daycare 30, 23 feet from the project boundary as a most exposed receptor.

It admits that without mitigation, cancer risks there would be nearly double the air district threshold.

The EAIR also acknowledges pollution here is cumulative and the region is in non-attainment.

The cumulative analysis that factors in roadway emissions and multiple nearby generators indicate cancer risk during construction, reaching roughly 54 per million at the daycare.

Senior housing and a skilled nursing facility are within a hundred feet.

Yet the report repeatedly calls the impact less than significant.

The huge assumption is that mitigation will work flawlessly.

The analysis assumes T Tier four equipment and strict dust control work consistently for 4.75 years of construction.

What's missing is enforceable oversight.

Who is monitoring?

What is measured?

What happens when levels spike?

The city approved schools, senior housing, and skilled nursing this close to the construction site.

It has a special responsibility to protect the people who will hear who will feel these impacts.

If you approve this, do it with enforceable protection and findings supported by substantial evidence.

Require real-time perimeter monitoring, public reporting, and clear stopwatch triggers if pollution rises.

Protect vulnerable children and seniors.

Please don't approve this without enforceable protection in place.

Let me uh ask staff if uh they can indicate what the enforcement of construction monitoring, how that how that would work.

Is the city uh building or department work?

MP shows it.

Did you understand the question?

Yeah, it's listed in the MMRP document, and yes, it'll be part of the construction plans and be reviewed with the building division.

So for each mitigation measure is a specific.

It's actually listed next to it in a table, who will be looking at it.

And as far as just general supervision or monitoring of the construction in general, is that the uh city building apartment?

Yes, uh the city building uh inspectors as well as the um engineering inspectors as part of the permitting phase.

Thank you.

And there's some self-reporting as well.

Dave Perkins, please.

Good evening.

My name is David Perkins.

I'm a resident of Viomonte.

I'm 95 years old, a father of four, a grandfather of eight, a great-grandfather of seven, with possibly a few more.

The reason I tell you this is I'm always looking for better places for my family members to move up and improve their quality of life.

I was delighted when I read uh Mitchell Town Homes was planning a uh uh a building complex in Walnut Creek.

I was excited to see a layout of the entire area, which even included two dog parks.

As I looked further, I saw four green areas throughout the site.

I was thrilled as I thought it as I was thrilled, is that I thought it would be family parks and children's play equipment areas, or and for adults to enjoy the wonderful outdoors of Walnut Creek.

However, as I look more closely with a magnifying glass, I found the four green areas to be water retention ponds that purpose to collect dirty rotol water without proper attention, these sites are great areas for mosquitoes and bugs of all kinds by close inspection finds absolutely no planned family or children's area.

Further, the ground floor of many of the garage or the many of the units is the garage with stairs up to the living area, all accessible and to the living area, which is accessible by stairs.

What are the plans for assisting uh disabled individuals or mothers with babies to get up these stairs safely?

I have a simple question.

For those ladies and gentlemen who have the authority to vote for or against this project, knowing what you know, would you move your family into the Mitchell town houses, even if their plans were modified?

I think an honest answer would tell you how to vote.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Mark Pearson, and then Catherine Pearson, Tom Stone, and Russ Gray.

Good evening, Planning Commission members.

I am Mark Pearson.

I'm a retired biotech entrepreneur.

I live at Via Monte.

I want to focus this evening on just one thing, and that's mitigating the air quality throughout the five year construction period for the MTP.

The EIR has generated a health analysis that shows that this project only falls below the Bay Area cancer risk thresholds.

After the MMR, sorry, the MM Air One and MM Air Two procedures have been put in place.

This means that air quality mitigation is not a side note to this project.

It means that it should be approved or disapproved on the basis of actual air quality.

So I'm asking you to think about five things for project approval.

First, require T4 Tier 4 diesel engines for all workplaces.

Second, require real-time monitoring continuously of particulate matter, especially the non-visible PM 2.5 particles near the school and senior housing where children and senior seniors are at greatest risk.

Fourth, acquire strict enforcement of anti-idling, and fueling controls, and fifth, require advanced notices to neighbors and the school before major grading or heavy emission phases.

Thank you.

So mitigation is what makes this project less than significant and approvable.

Then these protections must be transparent, measurable, and enforceable.

Thank you very much.

Catherine.

These residents are concerned about the plan to place 422 townhomes on 22.5 acres of land directly across the street from our home.

Will the petitioners who are present please stand up?

Whoever saw the petition, please stand up.

Thank you.

We support the we support the redevelopment of this property, but we believe the current plan requires significant modifications.

Detailed in our comments to meet the goals and standards of Walnut Creek and its citizens now and in the future.

As one example, the MTP proposes to construct three-story single-family townhouses along Mitchell and Shea Lands Drive.

They would have only 20 foot setbacks from the curb, and mature trees would be cut down.

This would be a wall of front doors.

The proposed design is neither attractive nor consistent with the rest of the neighborhood, and the EIR proposes no mitigating measures.

There are individuals copy of a petition for the commissioners.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Tom.

I am Tom Stone and I live at Via Monte.

And ask, is there a more unsuitable site for this project in Walnut Creek?

Medical and early childhood education facilities and senior housing surround this site.

Elements that can influence the approval or current size and scope of a builder's remedy project are health and safety issues.

A crucial question for the commission to answer is what exactly are the criteria required to deem a proposed project as too dangerous for the surrounding population.

The young and elderly are uniquely susceptible to serious adverse health effects from the air contaminants that will be generated during demolition, debris cleaning, clearing, and construction activities.

The analysis for air contaminants in the report are woefully inadequate.

The report focuses on cancer risk, which generally happens over decades.

Understated are the more immediate serious health hazards for elderly residents with heart and respiratory issues, and children with immature respiratory systems that will manifest far sooner.

The commission should not accept the report's unsupported statements regarding air contaminants as true or complete.

High levels of dangerous particulates will be generated during this project, and the increased vehicular traffic during and after occupancy.

A safe level of PM 2.5 exposure for sensitive populations is 12 micrograms per cubic meter.

That level is already exceeded on moderate air quality days.

The huge project will be put in the community at risk for nearly five years.

The proposed mitigation measures are deficient.

The health risks are substantial and serious.

Please consider drastically reducing the size of this project and requiring real-time air monitoring to protect the surrounding vulnerable community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Russ Gray, and then it'll be David Adkin, Mike Heller, and uh Tac Mazuno.

Uh good evening, Commissioners.

I'm uh Russ Gray.

I'm also a resident of Via Monte.

And uh this item relates to the earlier discussion of Builders' Remedy.

Good discussion.

Uh we respectfully or respectfully urge the commission and the city attorney to carefully consider whether it is appropriate to allow this project to bypass local land use controls under the builders' remedy provisions of the housing accountability act.

Under state law, cities that have a housing element in substantial compliance with state requirements retain their authority to apply local zoning and planning standards to affordable housing projects, as you know.

Walnut Creek worked diligently and in good faith to bring its housing elements into compliance, and as Samara outlined and Claire clarified, the city uh developed and implemented the necessary policies and programs and submitted them to the state.

The state ultimately approved Walnut Creek's housing element in October on October 24th, 2023.

The project applicants submitted the preliminary uh application for this project just a few days before that approval.

A reasonable case could be made that uh that the element had been de facto approved and implemented and only admit at that point and only administrative processing delays and mail transit delays between the city's submission and the state's formal approval caused the project to be considered under builders' remedy.

It's important because the project raises numerous committee concerns, your community concerns you're hearing about, including health, safety, scale, uh density, and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods.

The loss by the city of local control over land use does not serve the interests of the community and future residents.

The accountability act allows substantial compliance to be determined not only by the state but also by a court of competent jurisdiction.

We will re respectively request that the city seek judicial confirmation that Walnut Creek achieves substantial compliance when it submitted its housing element, then it was later approved by the state.

If a court confirms that, then the applicant's preliminary application was filed after compliance was achieved was achieved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

David My name is David Atkin, and I'm a resident of Viamonte.

Shadelands Drive, a two-lane road, is inadequate for peak demands in the future.

There is no way to add left-turn pockets.

A vehicle waiting to turn left will create a backup.

If oncoming traffic is similarly blocked, gridlock occurs.

This already happens and worsens when traffic from Ignacio Valley Road detours onto Shadelands.

Ambulance calls to Via Monte are common.

There was an average of seven per month between August 1 and December 31 of last year.

Each response requires the arrival of two vehicles, a ladder truck and an ambulance.

Theoretically, emergency vehicles have right of way.

In practice, gridlock will hamper emergency response on narrow Shaylands Drive.

I observed a 10-minute ambulance delay on Oak Grove Road during construction of Chick-fil-A.

The report discloses that access to some driveways may be limited because vehicle queue lengths on Shaylands are estimated to extend longer than a football field during the morning peak.

The driveways that remain post-construction serve major traffic generators.

A queue that clogs the only roadway access to a senior facility on a daily basis creates a public health and safety issue because it will impede the simultaneous response of two emergency vehicles.

No access or traffic mitigations are being required beyond the preparation of a future maintenance of traffic plan.

This includes unscheduled EMS access and continuous ADA compliant pedestrian paths throughout the five years of construction disruption.

Thank you.

Thank you.

There we go.

Good evening.

I'm Mike Heller.

Thank you for being here this evening.

I want to add uh comments on the issue of fire and EMS response.

The vehicles vehicle miles travel metric is all about reducing carbon footprint.

It has nothing to do with a narrow two-lane street like Shadelands Drive, which is already congested at time various times of the day.

Our ambulance needs are increasing, partially because the State Department of Social Services has changed several regulations that will require more ambulance calls to come to Via Monte.

The two new bicycle lanes that are proposed will be wonderful for bicyclists.

So the EIR hopefully says that ambulances can just turn on their lights and siren and traffic will melt away.

Presumably that's by leaping over the bicycle lanes and getting up on the 10-foot-wide sidewalks.

It's not clear where is the traffic going to go to get out of the way.

Congestion today results just from someone trying to turn, someone trying to parallel park, or pedestrians crossing.

The pedestrian crosswalk is needed and a good idea, but the fact is, on the small narrow road, there's no alternative for traffic to make its way along the street.

Disappointing is the lack of mitigating measures proposed that address this issues of congestion and public safety response along along shade lands.

All of the mitigation measures are during construction.

That's the start.

That doesn't address the longer term problem.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Following will be Patricia Bettencourt, Laura Pauly, and Trans Brooks.

Travis Brooks, sorry.

Okay, thank you for this opportunity.

I am TAC Mizuno, also a resident of Via Monte.

And I would like to second the comments by Mike Heller.

Especially, well, that's what he talked about.

Traffic issues.

Some of my concerns are submitted in my comments on the written comments on the draft GIR.

I under regarding traffic.

I understand that the CEQA does not consider level of service, but I firmly believe that this is a responsibility of the city of Walnut uh Walnut Creek.

On the issue of public services, my concern is on water supply as it affects fire safety.

While deferring the question of adequate fire flow to water and fire departments.

I found the EIR lacking in providing quantitative assurances.

That is flow and pressure.

Uh having assurances for the four uh for the fire services uh while we maintaining service to uh Via Monte.

Uh we have a uh sprinkler system, we also need uh flow and pressure.

Please also clarify the size of water means in Mitchell and Shade Lands Drives.

The main in shade lands has been variously described in documents as uh both 12 and 24 inches.

And uh just a point of clarification.

The uh the agencies, Contracts of County Water and the Fire Department's are responsible agencies, and I'm sure they have it under control, but it I think it really should be documented.

Thank you.

Patricia, good evening, commissioners.

My name is Patty Bittenbender or Patricia.

I am co-chair of the Via Monte Resident Council.

Some years ago, city approval was granted for a senior living community to be the first residence project in Shade Lands Business Park.

That became Via Monte Senior Living, home to 250 residents, seniors.

More recently, approval was granted for another senior community across Mitchell.

That project may fast become a reality, but the pending approval of the Mitchell Town Homes project for me comes a sense of betrayal.

My expectation was that the Walnut Creek City Commissions would provide some protection for our community of seniors.

We are the first, and as far as I know, only residents in shade lands.

We have been good neighbors in the community utilizing businesses in shade lands and neighboring shopping centers with minimal automobile use.

We believe that adding another senior community would be similarly beneficial to the surrounding community.

Additionally, senior housing opens the way for sales of single family homes, which we need.

I understand the need for more and affordable housing in urban areas.

The problem is the introduction of the extraordinarily dense MTP that will look and feel out of place in the neighboring areas.

It will result in increased traffic, auto and bike, and decreased safety for drivers and pedestrians, especially seniors.

Viamonte residents walk the orchards by modal pathways many times a day to grocery stores for exercise to enjoy the lovely grounds around Viemante.

The bimodal pathways have become more dangerous with the increased presence of children on electric bikes.

This danger will increase exponentially when MTP is complete.

Construction mitigations aside, please remember that the average age of Viamonte residents is mid-80s.

For many, they will live their last years in the dust and noise of construction and cannot move away as we would incur a large financial loss.

Yeah, Travis.

Thank you very much.

Sorry, Travis.

That's fine.

Um hi everybody.

Uh Travis Brooks.

I uh for the last 10 years have lived in woodlands in a house about 2,000 feet.

I just checked on Google Maps from where this project will be.

My daughter still walks to Valley Verde under the beautiful view of Mount Diablo.

Uh I just checked uh Zillow and Redfin before this meeting.

Uh, you know, and selfishly was very surprised and and pleased to see that the value of our home and the cost of our home, according to those sites, has skyrocketed by more than 50% in the last seven years.

Uh so instead of you know being overwhelmed with selfish joy, uh, I'm troubled because that means we're in the middle of a really serious crisis.

These housing prices are unsustainable and untenable for young people that are in the same position I was in 10 years ago.

For them, it's impossible to buy a home and start building the equity that has been the linchpin of the American dream for the last hundred years.

And the number one reason for this crisis is a lack of supply.

New housing for the last 50 years has been denied or not even proposed because of a not in my backyard mindset and the interests of existing homeowners having a veto over any such projects.

Endless environmental review that's not necessary.

Endless request for small changes to the project that ultimately just killed the project, and that's why we're in a crisis like we're in now.

Uh, the bottom line is as though as the staff report very accurately reflects, uh, you are required by state law to approve this project as proposed.

They don't even have to make any changes.

They've they've been very accommodating and uh propose a very nicely designed project that I look forward to seeing.

Uh, and you know, just to just end that doesn't mean that we get to a bad result here.

Uh, the existing office building, uh, it's a it's a no longer very desired use.

If you want to know what it's going to look like in 10 years, just look at the office building on Citrus Circle that's vacant, dilapidating, and often has RVs in the parking lot.

That's not the community I want to see my daughter to grow up in.

I want her to be surrounded by vibrant housing.

We've got Laura, Mark Orcutt, and Ann Meyer.

Mark?

All right.

Good good evening, Chair, Commissioners.

Uh, my Mark Orcutt, president and CEO of the East Bay Leadership Council.

We're a nonprofit organization on a mission to strengthen the economy and improve quality of life across the East Bay.

Uh, EBLC supports this project because it turns an underutilized office site and parking into much needed housing along a major transportation corridor in a city with access to jobs and opportunity.

We need more housing in places like this.

Converting aging commercial properties into homes strengthens our economy, supports sustainability, and expands access to opportunity.

We understand there are strong opinions about the project, how the project came forward.

The builders' remedy process has generated real debate.

But EBLC evaluated this proposal on its merits.

Traffic concerns along this corridor are understandable.

Fortunately, the environmental review conducted that can concluded that transportation impacts would be less than significant.

And EBLC supports thoughtful mitigation or applicable.

Simply put, housing near jobs, retail and services is part of the solution to our traffic and affordability challenges, not the cause of them.

For those reasons, EBLC supports this project and encourage you to advance it consistent with the staff recommendation and state law.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Ann Meyer.

I'm a very resident of Villamonte.

I don't have prepared remarks.

What I do feel is that when you look at this project, I know the stacks, the figures and so on.

Say one thing.

Living there is another thing.

We already have enough traffic on the on the uh roadway.

Can you imagine?

And 800 cars or less leaving around certain times to go to work.

We have all these families coming in with kids.

And uh it's it's not, I don't have the figures, but I do know exponentially or experientially that it's going to be a real problem.

I look at the houses that you've proposed.

I I know that even Viamonte had a lot of negative things when it was built.

But these houses, they don't have they look on each other.

They're they are the um when you look at the the buildings, there's only windows on the front and back, and they look at more houses.

They don't have any kind of view, they have, you know, uh uh a sort of closed-in.

They're actually cages.

So this is not the kind of house that I would like to see.

And if you weren't standing in my shoes and looking at this housing project, you'd probably feel the same way.

Thank you.

Uh next three would be uh Ryan McMahon, David Blackwell, and Bob is it uh uh Ashmore.

Ryan?

Yep, I'm running.

Hello.

Um so yeah, my name's Ryan.

I live in uh downtown Walt Creek, a few blocks away.

Um I've lived in a lot of different cities across the East Bay, and I love Long Creek the best.

I plan to stay here for a long time.

Um I just wanted to say um this is somewhere where I'd like to live potentially if this ever does get built.

Me and my wife, we really do like downtown, but this could be a place where we can get a little bit more room, and there's still a lot of great amenities in that area too.

Um, and then also we only have one car, and then I ride my bike a lot, so we wouldn't add to a lot to the traffic as well.

Um a lot of my friends have had to move to cities like far away, which like has a has like increased our commutes and like you know, um affects the earth, you know, and in bad ways too because they're driving so long, they're you know, like somebody mentioned cages or staying their cars for two hours a day, sitting in a cage, right?

So um being closer to jobs, being closer to their community, I think is really important.

Um my wife actually works for the county too, and a lot of her co-workers don't even live in Conchacosta County because I can't afford living here.

So I know these are not gonna be like the most affordable, some of them will be, but um, they'll be more affordable than what we have right now, you know, like then a lot of homes in the area.

Um, so yeah.

Um I do feel uh for the con for the Vier Monte residents and the construction that these will provide.

I live in an apartment right now, and there's construction right next door, and it is really tough to deal with that, and this is gonna take a really long time to build, so I think we should do everything we can to make sure that we've limited you know the effect to the those residents living there during this time because that is really really hard to deal with.

So yeah, thank you so much.

David.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is David Blackwell.

I'm a long-time resident of Walnut Creek.

I live in the Shady Glen area for the last 17 years and raise my family here.

I'm not here representing any part, anybody is a part of this agenda item.

I basically have no dog in this fight.

The reason I'm here is because I love Walnut Creek and I strongly believe in responsible planning.

And what does that mean?

Well, in my view, the core essence of that is following the law.

And in this case, there the state law is what governs here.

It's been ably laid out in the staff report, but without question, SB 330, the density bonus law, and the housing accountability act.

We use them for all of our projects because they are so important to the production of housing.

And they've been strengthened over the years because the housing crisis has worsened.

And so these laws are essential to essential to the construction of housing.

And we can't go back to the days of business as usual where subjective complaints would be enough to derail the project.

Now it the only way that you could possibly deny this project or reduce it is to meet one of the statutory findings, which again staff laid out, and it boils down to this is there a specific adverse impact of the public health health or safety.

And though that is not just that's not just a you know complaint by somebody, it has to be based on real specific criteria, and those findings simply cannot be met here.

So in sum, in my view, if if you do if you want to if you're gonna follow the law, you really have no choice but to approve this project.

Thank you.

Bob.

Good evening.

My name is Bob Asfor, and I'm a resident of res of the Mati.

Uh I would like to start by identifying some interesting phrases that I read in the EIR concerning health and safety.

Sensitive receptors.

This refers mostly to the very young and the elderly who would be most vulnerable to the air pollution that this project will be generating for about four or five years, specifically PM 2.5 and PM 10 are listed.

PM stands standing for particulate matter 2.5 and 10 relating to the size in microns or micrometers of the air and dust particles.

Since we cannot see anything smaller than 35 microns with the naked eye, all of these particles are invisible to us, but when airborne are easily inhaled and capable of penetrating deep into the lungs and into the bloodstream.

Leaving the EIR and moving to Google, I searched for health and environmental effects of particle matter PM, specifically PM 2.5.

Here is a short description from the EPA.

Tiny particles, big impact.

And here is just their short list of provable effects.

Asthma, bronchitis, COPD, increased risk of heart attack and strokes, cognitive decline, and their separate list for small children, premature death, reduced lung capacity, lung cancer, impact to brain health, and none of these are referenced in the EIR.

The EPA's recommendation remediation is to wear an N95 mask at all times during possible exposure.

Back to EIR.

There is no mention of supplying anyone an N95 mask at any time.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Before we uh move on, we still have a fair number of uh speaker cards to go.

Um I'm gonna ask you uh I've been asked to do a five minute break.

Um, and so we will resume at uh 809.

Okay.

If you have your seats, please.

That causes more trouble than we want.

Ladies and gentlemen who are about to continue.

If you take your seats, please.

It's right there.

It's what it's for.

If the secretary would read the next three names, we'll move along.

If we could have uh everybody to sit down, please.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's time.

The next names will be Matt Reagan, Cheyenne Gomez, and Tim Catrill.

Perhaps you can repeat those once it's quieted down a bit.

Can you repeat those names?

Matt Reagan.

Cheyenne Gomez.

Tim Cotrill.

Next three speakers, please.

The long walk.

Chairman, uh, commissioners, my name's Matt Regan.

I'm here representing the Bay Area Council.

We're a business sponsored nonprofit representing the largest employers in the Bay Area.

I manage our housing policy, and as my boss likes to say it, it's all my fault.

Um I'm not here to sing the praises of the project.

You have our letter that sings the praises of the project.

I'm here to talk about the process and what has led us to this point.

The very imperfect process that's led us to this point.

This should be a dialogue between the community and the project sponsor, but it's not.

And there's a reason why it's not, and it's because rooms like this for the last 50 years have killed good projects.

And we've had a the resulting housing crisis has meant that the state has had to step in and remove discretion from local governments because rooms like this have consistently killed good projects and resulted in a housing crisis of unprecedented proportions.

Forty thousand Californians every single year move to Texas because they build homes in Texas and people can afford to live there.

Two hundred thousand people every single day drive into the Bay Area from their homes in the far-flung exurbs of Patterson and Tracy and Mantica, burning gas on their way here two hours in the morning, and burning gas on their way home two hours in the evening.

So that's why the state has had to step in and take away your discretion.

If you refuse to approve this project, this is obviously compliant with both the housing accountability act and the builders' remedy.

Your city attorney has said so, your staff has said so.

You have heard from outside council that this does apply.

If you just choose to ignore the law, the state is required to fine you ten thousand dollars per unit.

That's state law.

Uh IBEW Local 302 here in um Contra Costa County.

I'm here tonight representing over 150 Wanna Creek households who belong to the plumbers, electricians, the sprinkler fitters, and sheet metal unions.

Uh, we have a few thousand members within Contra Costa County.

For the last thirty years, we've worked to support projects that promote sustainability and equity.

We were the first trade organization in the nation to support a county's urban growth boundary to help encourage developments like this one in front of you tonight.

We have partnered with developers like Signature Development to gain approvals and build over 60,000 housing units in our county.

With that history, it's no surprise that we are here tonight asking for your support, uh asking for your support uh for this project.

Uh we appreciate that signature development has taken the time to hear and be responsive to concerns raised by the project's neighbors.

Um just thank you uh for your service to the community, and we hope you say yes to the project.

Thank you.

Times Tim Cottrell.

Hearing none.

The next three would be Nick, Nick Guchen, good one.

Sorry, good one, Susan Wolf and Michael Katsos.

Uh, you're not gonna need a timer for me tonight.

I'm gonna keep it quick since there is a stacked house here.

But uh good evening, commissioners.

My name is Nick Goodwin.

I'm the business manager for Plumbers' Steam Fitters Local 159 located in Martinez.

Uh, like a few others here in the room, I'm here representing the plumbers, the electricians, the sprinkler fitters, and the sheet metal worker unions that cover Contra Costa County.

I come to you tonight to speak in favor and ask for your support of the project before you.

The commitment and partnership from developers such as Signature Homes has helped in the successful careers of several apprentices.

Uh where they get to start their career and hopefully at the end of it reach a term all of us want to get to, and that is retirement.

Uh, the project will be able to offer opportunities to our apprentices that have grown up in your community, and also we'll be able to leave their stamp and imprint on their with their career in this community as well.

All we hear about is the ongoing housing crisis, and here's a project that will help solve a portion of this housing crisis.

I strongly feel that this project is right for Walnut Creek, and I ask for the support by advancing this project tonight.

Thank you for allowing me to speak and the opportunity to be here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Susan?

My name is Susan Wolf.

Whoops.

And I wasn't um planning to speak tonight, but I feel motivated to endorse what my fellow residents at Via Monte have said, and so I won't repeat that.

I'm just gonna give you some thanks, Mark, some bullet points of things that occurred to me while I was sitting here.

I haven't heard a word about asbestos, asbestos mitigation, how it's going to happen, when it would happen, and where would the vehicles be and the where would vehicles be who are working on the project?

Where would the construction vehicles be?

People who are on management coming to view the site.

Are they going to do street parking?

Where what is that going to further aggravate the conditions?

Um, because it will there will be giant vehicles and small vehicles coming in there.

Um I'm not opposed to having a project like that.

I'm just opposed to the density and the ugliness of what I see when you get off the perimeter.

It it's in my eye, it looks ugly.

And um, I see kids riding their bike in the street.

I don't know what the sidewalk looks like.

Can a mom push a carriage on the sidewalk around the around the complex?

I couldn't tell.

This is beautiful, but it's the only one place it happens that I could see.

I'm doing this now on my own.

My fellow residents at Viet Monte might not like what I'm about to say, and management might not lie.

But I would like to invite any of you to come visit my home in Via Monte and see how it can be done right.

With lots of open space, lots of places to have lunch outside during the warm, the warm months.

We love it.

You know, the way the servers come out with our food.

We're sitting in the beautiful, in the beautiful spaces.

Come visit me at Via Monte.

And and also just one word.

I I had lung cancer a few months ago, and I don't want to have to deal with all that stuff.

Thank you.

Michael.

The next the next three speakers would be Jan.

Jan Warren, Susan Lee Vick, and Ray Green.

Greenleaf.

Good evening, commissioners, city planners, fellow Walnut Creek residents.

I've heard a lot of good comments.

I'm not going to repeat.

Expressing concerns about building density, about the loss of most of the redwood trees in this development.

But I'm coming here as a retired engineer, a man that I'm used to working with facts and with data.

And I read the CIR.

It was very long.

It was, it looked like one of my old lab reports backwards and forwards.

And the one thing that struck me, which I thought was odd for such an important project was there was so much language of affection, not language of fact.

For example, the traffic survey.

I have given some feedback and I would like to speak perhaps with Mr.

Spencer on another occasion about some items, some sentences that just didn't make sense to me in comment rebuttals in the final EIR specifically page 2-11.

There's a comment that says, Well, we know that the traffic is unacceptable going eastbound at both rush hour intervals on Ignacio Valley Road.

It's like that already.

So having this project is not going to be accountable for creating traffic.

So therefore, we're not going to assess this as an impact, but it's indeed an incremental impact to safety and to pollution.

Adding, I don't know how many cars out on the road going in the same direction now, out to work and back, and on the weekends.

Facebook and next door are available, and they should be accessible because our city council members use them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jan?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Is that Susan?

Yes.

I'm Susan Leavick.

I'm the president and chief executive officer of Joybound People and Pets in the Shadowlands at 2890 Mitchell Drive.

I want to start with two comments.

One, Viamonte is exceptionally beautiful.

It is one of the loveliest communities, senior or otherwise, that I have ever seen.

And I can understand why you all have a very high bar.

I also know that I, you know, I'm the mom of four kids and a little baby granddaughter.

They would be thrilled to live in Mitchell Drive town homes.

And their standards just can't be quite as high as yet.

Their main standard is affordability.

And I really believe that this project delivers a nice home for the money.

I will also tell you that we have 140 employees at Joybound People and Pets, many of them early career or mid-career, but even the late career professionals, veterinarians, and other highly skilled professionals have a hard time finding a nice affordable home in Walnut Creek.

So the very idea that those 55 affordable units or some of those market rate units could be housing for those good folks who work for us at Joybound thrills my heart.

I will also say sustainability is tremendously important to our organization.

Our CFO here has crafted a multi-year sustainability plan for us.

And let me just invite all of you and all of the future residents of Mitchell Drive Town Homes to come and enjoy the beautiful outdoor space in our lovely memorial gardens.

We're happy to extend that to this community for those folks who can't have access to large, leafy, shaded, beautiful courtyards such as Via Monte enjoys.

But we're gonna share ours with you.

The other thing is that on sustainability, it's a walkable, a true walkable community.

Literally, you could live and work and shop in Shadelands and not need a car.

And that's tremendously important and a great value to all of us at Joybound, and we hope to the city we're strongly in favor of approval.

Thank you.

Now Jan.

Now, Jan.

Hi, I'm Jan Warren.

I live in the woodlands, and uh we were fortunate enough 40 years ago to buy a home there, which we could never afford now.

Uh Walnut Creek is a highly desirable city with a wonderful quality of life, and a lot of people want to move here, but we just don't have enough housing, and we particularly don't have enough affordable housing.

Um I have I have participated and supporting affordable housing for over 10 years here in Walnut Creek.

Um I participated in the development of the orchards, which people, oh look, we can't see our you know, squirrels run around.

We I mean they had a lot more meetings uh than this one, which is uh a benefit.

Um I I love having the Via Monte folks in our area, and I love all the I mean you can hardly get a parking place over in that shopping center.

So it's been very successful.

The engineers did a great job.

We were all people were concerned about you know turning in the traffic, and they did a great job of of making it work for for people.

Um how am I doing?

Am I out of time?

No.

You have about a minute.

Oh, okay.

Wow.

So anyway, this the orange is the same center that offers these amenities for those that live in Via Monte.

My neighborhood in the woodlands was up in arms about that.

Uh Via Monte, and some of them may be living there now.

I don't know.

Um, so anyway, this this is a well-thought-out project.

I mean, uh I live just off uh Oak Grove and Peach Willow.

I'm gonna get the dust and so forth as well.

I'm not young either, but I am thrilled to be able to um welcome younger people, people from downtown who want to have a little more space, uh, people who can come to Walnut Creek and enjoy it as much as the rest of us.

So thanks for the project.

I support it.

Thank you.

Uh is it uh Ray?

He left.

Okay.

The next three would be Linda Thompson, Sally Doherty, and Eunice Swenson.

Linda.

Good evening, commissioners.

I my name is Linda Thompson.

I'm a resident of Via Monte Senior Living.

With over 400 townhomes proposed in the Mitchell Town Home Project, it is fair to assume that an additional 800 plus vehicles will daily pour onto our local streets and ultimately onto Vienna, excuse me, Ignatio Valley Road, which is already heavily congested.

Even now, at times during the daily commute, the traffic is backed up onto Shade Lands Drive, blocking the entrance of Via Monte Senior Living.

I'm concerned about the impact the additional traffic will have on the senior residents and our ability to safely use the cross swaps around our community, as well as resident access to and exit from our underground parking with the increased traffic backing up on shade lands.

I am particularly concerned about emergency medical services and fire department vehicles being able to enter and exit via Monte's driveway to assist in medical emergencies, which occur frequently in a senior community.

This is a major safety issue.

I would hope the Planning commission would see the value of requiring the Mitchell Town Home Project to reduce the number of townhomes proposed and require them to do more to mitigate the increase in traffic they will create.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sally?

Yeah.

My name is Sally Doherty.

I live in 2801 Shade Lands.

And I am opposed to the Mitchell Townhouses because I think they are so dense.

Right now we have a beautiful business park with trees, streams, park-like features.

It's gonna be replaced by mega housing project with very little green space, fewer trees, and no streams in an area that is called the orchard or the shade lands.

Neither of which will be present.

I want to remind you that housing projects in San Francisco and Oakland are not fine places to which um anyone wants to live, and that is going to be your legacy if you uh submit this project as is to Walnut Creek.

Thank you.

Eunice.

Good evening, everyone.

I uh I had prepared something and written it out on my computer, and then I tried to print it out and the printer didn't work.

So I just have to speak.

Uh my story is just uh a very uh personal one, and I understand that housing is very important, and I live at um Viamonte.

I live on Shade Lands Drive.

I recently have been uh diagnosed with a ling a lung disease, and so my concern is what is it going to be like to live there for four or five years and have the dust and particulates and all kinds of things pouring into my apartment, and so it's just a personal story, and that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

We have four more.

Lana Georgieva, portion, of course, uh who's that uh Lana?

Steve.

Steve with the green ink.

R.

Yeah, it starts with an R.

The rest of it.

And Cheryl McKenna, please.

Where's Porsche there?

Steve.

Thank you.

Um I would like to say that um I live in Viamonte, and I've been living there for five years, um, and it's a wonderful place to live.

And I think Walnut Creek is a great town, and I'm an engineer, a retired engineer, and I admire the fact that the streets don't flood when you get heavy rains, and that the traffic lights work most of the time.

Um, but and I've dealt a lot with governments in my career, and I think you guys are getting bamboozled to be pushed into an unex uh uh an excessive use of this builder's remedy.

I don't think that was the builder's remedies.

I'm all for affordable housing, but I'm but I don't think I think these guys are taking advantage of you and uh they could build a suitable complex with affordable housing without elbow to elbow um uh buildings and without destroying the the green space that we have.

I mean, that's one of the nice things about the Monte.

We have these we we look uh across the street and they've got these huge trees which do wonderful things for all of us.

Everybody knows that, and they're gonna cut them down.

There ought to be a way if they were at all sensible and not just looking to make all the every buck that they can to preserve those trees and still have an affordable uh a doable project and have affordable housing.

Um it seems to me that they're just trying to push push it to the envelope and elbow to elbow um units with no care at all about the about fitting into Walnut Creek.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Well, oh no, that's Cheryl.

Cheryl?

Good evening.

My name is Cheryl McKenna.

I'm the chief financial and chief operating officer for Joy Bound People and Pets.

We're located at the corner of Mitchell Drive and Oak Grove Road.

I've heard and very much respect our Viamonte uh neighbors' comments and concerns this evening, but I'm here to express my excitement about this project and the positive energy it promises to bring to our corner of the Shade Lands community.

It represents not just a new development, but a welcome infusion of life and activity and possibility into an area that has been overly quiet since I started there.

I've been with Joy Bound for six years, and during that time I've watched our organization and our community grow and evolve.

Yet we continue to sit next door to this vacant lot and across the street from an office park that is overly largely empty.

These underutilized spaces have long felt out of sync with the vibrancy and optimism that defines the mission of Joybound and the goals of the Shade Lands Park.

Joy Blamp Joy Bounds campus is a place where people come to make connections.

The revitalization this new development will bring aligns beautifully with that spirit, and increased activity in the area will not only strengthen our neighborhood, but also deepen the sense of community that we at Joybound work hard every day to foster.

And I'll admit selfishly that I'm thrilled about the potential for new volunteers, new supporters, new families coming through our facility.

The more engaged our community becomes, the more people in pets we're able to help.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my support, and I believe this development will be a positive step forward for the Shade Lens community.

Thank you.

Is Lana here?

Last call for Lana.

Oh, is Lana Porch?

Okay.

Sorry, sorry, sorry.

Laura Patch.

That's it.

I am shocked to be the last person speaking.

Um hi everyone, I'm Laura Patch, use she her pronouns.

Um, as many of you know, I'm very involved in Walnut Creek uh government and politics and community.

I sit on the transportation commission and I've run for city council twice.

And I say that because I love Walnut Creek.

I grew up in Contra Costa County and really care about it, and when I got to move back, I chose Walnut Creek because of how much I love it.

And yet, in the last three months or so, I have actually seriously been considering moving because it is very difficult for me to afford to live here.

Um, this is the exact kind of housing project that this city needs.

This medium density allows people my age, younger, and those around that age to have a home that feels like a home, is not an apartment, but still has a community feel to it.

Um I believe that the developer has been extremely accommodating to the requests coming from the design review commission and from other comments.

The playground, for example, is really fantastic.

There is a very similar complex that is on my road.

Um, it's been a great addition to my neighborhood area.

It's unincorporated, so it's not a feasible place for me to live.

I'd have to give up everything I listed about being involved in the community.

Um I also just want to address, yes, traffic will change, but some of the earlier comments that have been mentioned about 800 cars seem outdated.

I don't know anybody my age who has a who is a two-car family.

Um we are talking about 400 units, that most likely you will have at most 600 cars, and they're not all gonna be moving at the same time.

Um, it's not like 800 cars are going to be during those commute hours.

So I really hope that you uh pass this, and um just to note that on the waivers, the setbacks are really what allow for this medium density to exist.

So I hope that that doesn't become a sticking point.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

We we have one more speaker that uh just dropped card, and it's wit, is wit.

Yeah.

Buzzer beater there.

Thanks for it.

I appreciate it.

And if it means anything, I'm a zero car family.

So good evening, Commissioners Whittern.

On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, we're a member supported nonprofit.

We advocate for housing across California at all income levels.

We're super excited about this project.

Um just strong support.

This is a common sense use of land, um over 400 units, family size units and high opportunity area.

Um, and the affordability here is really a standout being double the city standard requirement.

It's gonna be huge for low-income families, and it's really just a meaningful commitment to the uh the families and essential workers that want to stay in Walnut Creek.

Um, and beyond housing, the neighborhood benefits are really real.

Um, open space, dog park, critical safety upgrades, um, these are direct responses to neighborhood feedback, um, and they make the shade lens area safer for everyone.

And uh a final reminder that you have a legal obligation to approve this project.

Um it's sustainable, family friendly, and aligns with the city's housing goals, so we urge you to move it forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That was the last I don't see anyone else racing up to the podium, so I'll uh actually close the public hearing yet.

Um before the applicant uh has 10 minutes to respond.

I wanted to ask the uh traffic engineer if you would uh come up to answer.

So actually, yes, and Chair if you would keep the public finger open for that question.

I backed off that idea.

Okay.

Uh yeah, I just wanted to um uh as been pointed out, the the uh VMT, the vehicle models traveled is useful for sequel, but perhaps not for other purposes of evaluating traffic, but you did more studies than that.

Could you address the uh impact of uh or what the impact of the uh current office use is and how that compares to the proposed project on emergency vehicles in particular, sure.

I will address that.

Can you hear me?

Okay, so the chair asked about can I address comments that were made specifically about um emergency vehicle response times and also how that compares to the current situation and then how that might change with the project as proposed.

Thank you.

Okay, um, so we we did take a look at that, and I'm gonna back up a little bit because it it relates to several things that we have in our analysis and um the the office park generates more trips, and uh I know a lot of folks have moved in to Via Monte in the last several years, and the office park has not been pushing its leasing as much as it was previously.

So it doesn't feel like it's it exactly, but um if nothing else changed, the office could just say this is what we're going to do.

We we could lease it, and we have to look at that as a condition of what's the potential for the office park, and then how does that compare to what's being proposed now?

Because those are basically the two conditions.

What we have now is kind of we're coming out of this post-pandemic condition, um, that is uh a little bit different.

The project does have the potential to generate fewer trips on a daily basis and in a peak hour basis.

But as I said earlier, it does change the directionality a little bit.

So again, with with residential more outbound in the morning, more inbound in the evening.

Overall, though, it's a significant reduction in trips, and that's what's in both the CEQA and the non-SEQA traffic analysis.

And I use that to start off the response because it does matter.

When we looked at safety in the CQA document, emergency response times in particular.

Um we have a couple of ways to look at that.

One is when we look at the intersection analysis in the non-SQL report, and it shows in tables, there are several tables in there.

I happen to have table 12 from the traffic report in front of me.

Um it just shows a comparison of a no project to a project condition.

Generally, there aren't big differences, they're very similar.

In most cases, the project results either in a similar or a slightly lower average delay.

But more importantly, is at all of these intersections, it's not showing failure conditions.

Now, with all respect, I know that everyone's saying, Well, that's not right, because you know, I go out there and I'm waiting through a cycle after a cycle, or it's getting hard and I can't get out of the driveway and so forth.

We're not saying there's not traffic out there.

What we have to evaluate in a project is what is this project do compared to if the project was not there?

That's the basis, and that gives us the apples to apples type comparison that we are prescribed to do.

And the project quite frankly would have not a very noticeable result compared to an office park, and that's really the the bottom line if you wanted to interpret all of the documents and everything else with respect to traffic, speeds, delays and so forth, response times for emergency vehicles, compared to each condition, whether it's today or in the near term future or in 2040, it's gonna be it's it's very, very similar, and that's the essence of it.

So where there are where there is congestion, where there are some cues or whatever, if you don't have the project, you'd have that same condition.

That's the the and in our comment response, and maybe it wasn't phrased as eloquently as as um as it could have been, but the essence is the project's not resulting in the effects, and that's what you have to evaluate is what does this project do, and then what can you condition this project to do based on its own merits?

Outside of that, if there are concerns about traffic and safety and delays and driveways and sight lines or whatever, those exist regardless of the project.

We have to separate, you know, concerns and and everyone's concerns are valid.

People who live here, people who drive here, people who work here, and so on.

But it's what is the project doing?

The project's not changing response times.

In general, what we also found.

Now, if we saw like hey, things are just so terrible, an emergency vehicle can't get through in a situation.

That is something we would flag because that is obviously an issue.

That's a safety effect.

And if it exists today, if it exists in the future.

That's not to say there are times now when it's not congestion and and you have those situations, but the project's not going to change that.

The what I did hear in some of the comments also, which um I do hear a lot.

I you know, I I've been doing this a long time, and I I work on a lot of different projects in different communities, construction period, which however long it lasts, those are in sequa terms considered limited.

They're short term, they come and they go, right?

I heard a comment earlier about when Chick-fil-A was under construction, and how there were some issues with traffic and circulation during the construction period.

Each construction project has its own construction traffic management plan, amongst other things.

That is something that the city prescribes, and that also talks about where how do you bring in the uh the bulldozers, how do you bring in the construction equipment?

How do the workers access the site?

What are the hours of construction?

What's the traffic lane control?

Do you have to relocate a bus stop?

What do you deal with sidewalks?

You have continuous pedestrian activity and bicycle activity and so forth.

All of that is prescribed in that document so that you maintain that access throughout the construction period, and I believe that's also monitored.

There's requirements, they're pretty strict actually.

So I I want to just kind of sum it up by saying it's not that we're saying there's no traffic or that things aren't going to be different from a transportation perspective, but the project's effects are pretty much the same as if the project was not there compared to the office park.

And that's a that to me is very telling in terms of you know an analysis.

Thank you.

And i i if I could expand on that, yeah.

Um could I ask?

Could I ask uh Janet from First Carbon Solutions to come up and maybe give us a two-minute walkthrough of of CEQA and the process to get to to get to the MMRP, and then specifically the the alternatives, how they were generated and evaluated, and then the relationship of the air quality mitigation measures with the MMRP.

Okay, I'll try to get I'll try to get to all that.

Let me start with a kind of a CEQA process overview.

Okay, so CQA requires any project that requires um discretionary approval, so it requires a city board or uh county commission to approve.

Um it requires that jurisdiction to look at a project um via a whole host of topics with which we've shown before and um within that host of topics there are very specific thresholds and that is where we define what is in CEQA considered a significant impact.

Your concerns that you've raised are all valid under CEQA, we have very specific and narrow thresholds of what is considered a significant impact, and then we have very specific items that could be considered as mitigation, and that mitigation must have nexus, meaning that the impact of the project must create a significant impact in terms of those thresholds to be able to require mitigation.

So under the law of CEQA, that is how you can require mitigation, and that is how you conclude that there is a significant impact.

So that's a basic CEQA primer.

What was the next item?

Um the alternatives, how you arrived at the alternatives and while they're evaluated.

Right.

So under CEQA, you are required to evaluate alternatives.

And the point of those alternatives is to reduce any significant unavoidable impacts, or if there are significant impacts that are mitigated to less significant, to try to create those make those come down even further, even though they're not significant.

So for this project, we had two alternatives that we considered outrightly, one being no project, and that's kind of what um what uh Mark was speaking to in terms of just the existing office park stays.

Um would that reduce some impacts?

Yes, would the but there are no significant impacts to reduce?

Um it would just be status quo as it goes.

As somebody mentioned, all of the mitigation measures, the majority of the mitigation measures, not all of them required for this project are for construction, and they ensure that during the construction period there are not significant impacts related to air quality and the health related to air quality.

There's not significant impacts related to noise.

Um there's uh not significant impacts related to construction traffic.

Um, under the no project alternative, that's one situation.

The other alternative that was considered was a reduced density alternative.

Um, and that one gets tricky because this project was submitted under the builders' remedy, they cannot change their project application by more than 20%.

So what we did is we was we said, well, okay, if they can't change their application by more than 20%, let's reduce the project by 20% and um evaluate that project.

Did it reduce some of the the severity of some of the less than significant impacts?

Yes.

Did it eliminate any of them?

No, you wind up having the same mitigation measures.

Um so those were the two alternatives considered directly in the AR.

We also consider alternatives, um, they're called considered but rejected, and that means they're not fully analyzed because they're simply from the outright infeasible.

Um, one of those alternatives was a senior housing option, um, and that is essentially unfeasible because of the builders' remedy application issue.

Proposing senior living um specifically housing, restricted housing on this site is not allowable by the existing general plan designation or zoning.

Um therefore, if we were if someone were to propose that as an alternative, they would have to go back to the start, provide a new application, and request different approvals, a general plan designation, redesignation, uh a zoning, rezoning.

Um, that's a whole different application process.

So it's it's not feasible, and so it wasn't fully considered.

Okay, anything else?

I just there was some discussion about um air quality and um uh to tier most of the mitigation measures that are already in the MMRP related to air quality, yeah.

So construction activity.

Yeah, we I we actually actually have our air quality expert here tonight, and maybe she can come up and speak on that.

Hi everyone, my name is Jackie.

I'm a senior air quality scientist with first carbon.

Um so yeah, the air quality, the construction related impacts were analyzed in accordance with Bay Area Air District guidance and recommended methodologies.

Um the Bay Area Air District is the agency with authority over air quality throughout the nine county Bay Area.

Um and the impacts were analyzed against thresholds that Jana mentioned, and we can the analysis concluded that with implementation of mitigation, the impacts would be less than significant.

The cancer risk, PM 2.5 concentrations, and non-cancer chronic um impacts would be below the identified thresholds.

Um a note about the mitigation.

So mitigation air one requires dust control measures during construction, and uh mitigation measure two air two requires the use of tier four construction equipment on all equipment.

Um tier four construction equipment reduces emissions by 90 to 95 percent.

Um so it's extremely clean construction equipment, and that would be enforced through the MMRP that was um discussed earlier.

There are any other questions on that.

Uh anybody questions?

First chair.

This is a complicated topic, and so um I do have some experience in this.

When you're doing this analysis, the requirement is as such that you literally have to put the manufacturer of the vehicle.

Can you go into that?

Because that's that's important in in the mitigation measure.

So I in the modeling, and it's interesting because I'm reading air two, and it literally discusses even the manufacturer, the identification number, the engine number, and that's I I really want you to go through that because your job is hard in the sense that they are required to provide you literally the exact amount of vehicles, whether it's excavators, skids, um, backhoes with the identification number, the horsepower.

So this is not this is serious how you're modeling.

Can you go, but I am not an air quality expert.

And can so at and after you explain that, can you also describe uh describe the power and what BACMED and CARB do as part of all that?

Yes, maybe I'll actually start there.

Um, so the Bay Area Air District, and I was employed there for 10 years actually, prior to joining First Carbon.

Um, they have regulatory authority granted by the public, the state's public health and safety code.

So they are a public health agency.

Uh they have regulatory authority over stationary sources of of air pollution throughout the nine county Bay Area.

So that's things like gas stations, um, refineries, um, dry cleaning facilities, industrial facilities, um, uh facilities of that nature, and the air resources board at the state level um has jurisdiction over mobile sources of air pollution, such as cars, trucks, uh, trains and and so forth, and construction equipment because those things move throughout the state, so it wouldn't really make sense to regulate those um in a local area.

So setting the framework there, I'll talk a little bit more about the modeling and your question.

So your question about um documenting exactly the the equipment that will be used and ensuring it's comp in compliance with this mitigation measure that actually falls on the applicant um to do that, and they will actually have to provide all of that information as part of compliance with this mitigation measure, and the city will be um will um be charged with enforcing it.

In terms of how we model it, um we use air quality modeling software um which can look at different scenarios and different types of equipment and the emission rates that are associated with the different types of equipment.

So, what we'll normally do is um model a project's air quality impacts on um using average construction equipment, and we'll see where that lands.

And in fact, we did that within the EIR as well and found that impacts would be would exceed thresholds.

So we then modeled it, assuming that construction equipment would use tier four emission standards, and that was sufficient to decrease air quality impacts below thresholds.

Does that answer your question?

Yeah, thank you.

And then and then last but not least, that just and that's kind of like the final point of it is that the submittal and proof of implementation of all of that equipment is required prior to being able to grade.

Absolutely.

In fact, yep, um the MMRP states that the method of verification would be preparation of a construction management plan, which Summer spoke to.

Um submittal of proof of implementation during construction.

Um that would be verified prior to issuance of a grading permit or a building permit during construction.

And the party responsible for verification would be the City of Walnut Creek Community Development Department.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Anything else, too?

Okay, thank you both.

Can I ask a follow-up on that?

Sure.

Um, so I just want to make sure that our community is able to follow along.

Um, so one of the things that I'm looking at on my screen right now is exhibit C to attachment one of the MMRP.

Um so this is the table that shows the mitigation measure.

Uh, then there's a column for method of verification, timing of verification, who is responsible for the verification, and then there's columns for verifying that it was complete for the date and initial.

Um so I just want to make sure the public is aware that that exists, um, and it does include um everything that's been talked about here, and I know during public comment it was mentioned tier four diesel engines, um, and that is listed on here as well under the MM Air 2.

Um, so um I just had a question about is there um ongoing monitoring of the PM 2.5.

There's not ongoing monitoring of the PM 2.5, no.

So the way that you determine that is through the modeling.

So we we modeled the PM 2.5 construction related emissions um in accordance with Bay Area Air District recommendations and found that with use of this lower um emissions equipment tier 4, the PM 2.5 concentrations would be below um the health-based threshold set by the Bay Area Air District.

Thank you.

One other thing I also wanted to just point out for the community um under the um mitigation measure air one, uh, one of the requirements is that the construction contractor posts a visible sign with um a telephone number and um a name for um for anyone to contact for any dust complaints, and uh that would go to the Bay Area Air District actually, and they do have enforcement officers who will um come out and investigate complaints.

Excuse me.

Excuse me.

Excuse me, excuse me.

We're not taking questions from the audience.

Okay, we'll be buying everybody breakfast before long.

So uh, just if you would uh you've had a chance to speak and and we're trying to get at what answers we can.

So uh thank you.

Um other questions?

Are we installed?

Comment?

Yes.

Yeah, oh I know.

Okay, I think everybody's okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Now I'll ask the applicant uh has 10 minutes to uh respond, comment.

Yeah, thank you.

Um Jonathan Fern, once again, I I don't I don't have 10 minutes worth of rebuttals.

I think the experts did a good job of uh describing a lot of the concerns that we've heard.

Um I all all that is to say is that we like we said we've agreed to the mitigation modern response plan.

We uh will perform the construction management plan prior to pulling a grading permit.

So all the stuff that you heard that we have to do, we'll do.

We'll have uh the uh uh disturbance coordinator listed on the site.

Um as it relates, I did hear a a comment about uh asbestos will do an asbestos survey prior to tearing the buildings down, uh, where you go in and figure out how much best this is lead-based paint there is.

Then you have a special remediation contract that will do that work, we will do that as well.

Um and then lastly, I'll just um mention about trees.

You know, we don't um want to tear down a lot of trees, um, but we did look.

Um we did took we took that very seriously uh from the community and from the DRC.

Uh even after the DRC asked us to, we went back, looked at every tree to see if there was any we could say that were in addition.

Uh but just in is as are laid out with our um utility plan and our site plan, it just wasn't feasible.

So we were happy that we could add more trees, but unfortunately we couldn't save them, but we we certainly looked at that.

So, thank you.

All right.

Uh with that, I will close the public hearing and uh bring it back to the commission.

Uh the uh we're asked to uh kind of to a two-step process.

First look at the EIR, um and I would suggest that we can discuss uh the EIR deal with that and then pick up the the various other uh resolutions to go.

So with respect to the environmental impact report, I have comments.

Somebody might want to start.

Okay, I can start.

Sorry, I was trying to be polite and let everybody else start.

Um, one of the things that I like to look at in an EIR is if the um MMRP includes things that are more than what I like to call the bones and the stones.

It's it's it's a saying, right?

It's um, you know, um the bones is which they have in there.

If you dig and you find something, is it a bone or a stone, or um just the preconstruction surveys.

And so if there's anything beyond that for me, that that's you know, to my fellow commissioners, that's kind of how I I like to look at an EIR.

Is there anything beyond that, or in an EAR, are we passing something which is called um a statement of overriding considerations, meaning that there was no mitigation at all.

And that was one of the first, as I poured as an engineer, I poured through all the documents.

Um I'm in a room full of engineers here.

I heard a couple of you, so thank you for coming out here.

Um, but that was that was for me a positive thing to hear was that it was it wasn't things that were were not passing or reviewing statement of overriding considerations, meaning that there's just no way that that mid that mitigation, pardon me, that impact could be mitigated.

And that the um MMRP wasn't anything beyond the bones of stones, as I call it, or the pre-construction surveys.

Sorry.

Am I not loud enough?

I'm sorry.

Did you guys hear my comment about how I love that there was engineers in the okay?

At least you heard that one.

Okay, I'm gonna I'm gonna synthesize everything that I just said.

Um sorry, I always tell my children not to yell at me, and now I'm I need to speak up.

Um so essentially, uh um to synthesize what I just said, the bet the best thing that I always look for in an EIR um when I'm reviewing it in an MMRP is that there's no statement of overriding considerations, meaning that there's no possible way that that impact could be mitigated.

And to me, uh I did not find that.

So that was extremely important.

And then the other thing that I always look at um for um EIRs and the and the subsequent MMRPs is that there's nothing beyond the regular bones and stones, that type of pre-construction survey um that would kind of lead to many uh of the folks' comments that would go beyond the issuance of grading or building permit or during construction, because then that kind of has a red flag alert to me of that's interesting that it couldn't be mitigated um notwithstanding the general construction.

So I'll I'll say that about the EIR for that topic if anybody wants to add something.

Commissioner Count.

So I just want to make sure we're clear for the public about what it is that we're doing here, as far as it as far as the environmental impact report.

So please correct me if I say anything wrong here.

We're not scientists that are checking on the validity validity of the report.

Um rather we are certifying that the EIR was in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the CEQA.

We acknowledge that the studies were in fact done by these independent sources, and that the findings were based on that data.

Did I say that correctly?

Right, that's that's correct.

And you're looking at whether or not there's evidence, um, you know, substantial evidence to support the conclusions uh which you can draw from the studies.

Thank you.

The comments.

Commissioner Quark.

All right, so um I wanted to say kind of my thought process at looking at the EIR and how I how I was approaching this.

So I do accounting for my day job and auditing, and a lot of what I look at is risk management.

What are the risks of things that can go wrong when we undertake um projects or other big other big um reports like this, and then once we identify those risks, how do we address them?

And so what I like about the EIR is that it it seems to follow the process for me, um, looking at okay, what is the proposed project out there?

How does it compare to the existing conditions, and then um what are the risks that come with it?

So, for example, a lot of people here have mentioned air quality is definitely a big concern, and that has been identified as a risk um to be looked at and to be addressed.

And so with the mitigation measures in place, I I do like the okay.

This is the condition that's at hand that should be addressed, and then this is what the steps that are going to be taken to address those conditions to reduce the risks that are um inherently present in such a project of this undertaking.

So I think because of the risk assessment that's been done and the steps that have been taken to uh address those risks, I think it seems to me that the EAR has done its due diligence and has identified the um appropriate steps during the construction and the eventual existence of the project.

Let me let me just summarize a bit.

There's there's three three things that can be found in an EIR.

One is um there's no significant impact, environmental impact, which is fine.

Just you know that that that works.

There is a significant environmental impact, um, but it can be mitigated to a point where it's not significant.

Uh and that's uh 10 or 12 or 14 situations here where that was the case.

Um and in those cases uh the applicant has provided uh assurance that those mitigations will take place in the in the process of the construction.

Um the third type is uh Vice Chair noted is uh there's a significant environmental impact, it can't be mitigated, but because of some overriding consideration, we're gonna do it anyway.

Okay.

There were none of those.

And that's that's very helpful to be able to have confidence in the EIR.

Um so I would uh I invite a motion.

Actually, um, just before you do that, I actually advise um if the commission, you know, if you're finished with the EIR components that you go on discuss the project, and you know if you're ready, then you go on with the motions at the time that you finish talking about the project.

There are a reason for that.

Um and the reason the the reason for that is uh what's it's generally good practice to to reach that conclusion at the end, and also just from a technical standpoint under the permanent stream mining act.

If you certify the EIR, it technically triggers a time by which the city has to approve a project.

Um and so unless there's a specific reason for that, then I'd advise you just continue with this.

Thank you for the explanation.

All right.

Um I'll uh table that suggestion and uh move to uh consideration of the uh project itself.

I'd like to start with um I guess I'll take a shot at it.

I guess I would refer to a different project.

Um our predecessors in this position, going back decades, have tried to make Walnut Creek a place to live, work, and play, and losing losing the work aspect of it by removing a possibility of an office complex, is limiting that said um the state of California has demanded we honor the builder's remedy with that.

And um, but looking at the project, it looks like a very decent project, and is would very be a good asset to this community.

Thank you, Commissioner Moran.

Uh thank you.

Microphone.

Um, thank you for everybody that came out and spoke uh and wrote.

Um I we've heard concerns about the traffic and the schools and the safety of the trees and all that, and I just want to know that we we take all this very sincerely.

Um, and so thank you.

Um my thoughts are that you know we have to operate within the constraints of the law, right?

And that's state law, which limits what we can do.

You've all heard the reasons.

Uh and CEQA demands that we just look at the impacts and then look to see whether they've been mitigated, and we have to make a determination based on that.

And the other thing is that this is an aging office complex that is not going to come to its full use anytime soon because the world has changed, and we need housing in our communities, and the way I see this is that a lot of people are not going to be happy with the outcome.

And we have to make judgments just based on all the factors involved, the community impact to the neighbors, and the need for housing.

So I support the project.

I would support a motion to approve it.

I'll let my fellow commissioners speak.

But I just want to know that we hear you, uh, and we're working within the constraints of what we've been given, and it's not an easy decision, and thank you, and I think that um we can move forward.

Commissioner Quak uh Klopp.

Quok Klopp.

Sorry.

It's not easy.

Uh so I want to thank everybody who came out and took the time to comment on the EIR, comment on the application, write letters, be part of the process.

It's really important that we have this kind of community dialogue.

That's what makes Walnut Creek a great place because we can respectfully discuss uh different opinions.

I personally am a really strong housing advocate.

Um, it surrounds everything that I do in my personal life to really look for us to increase housing supply in Walnut Creek.

I think that this is a uh well thought out project.

I feel that the developer has done his best to respond to community concerns, and I think uh when I think of my kid who wants to live in this area and can't afford, and many people I know whose kids want to live in this area and can't afford this is the kind of project that we need to move forward.

So for that I support it.

So thank you.

Commissioner Quok.

All right.

Um so I was I'm actually very excited for this project.

To me, as someone who is um at the age where I'm looking for housing, and I'd love to stay in Walnut Creek for all the reasons that you all have spoken to for the community, for the um, for the access to amenities in the area, the um the schools that are here, the park lands that are available, all of that makes Walnut Creek a great place to live.

And I enjoy it, and I do want to stay here.

But at the same time, at the same time, there's also my own life priorities.

You know, where do I want to see myself living in the next 10 years?

Where do I where do I see myself raising a family?

And if it were possible, I'd love my answer to be Walnut Creek, stay here, just as you all all selected Walnut Creek to be your city to live in.

So Mitchell Town Homes represents that opportunity for people like me, my friends who have been looking for housing, um, people who that I know who I went to college with that eventually left the state because they couldn't afford to live in the Bay Area where they grew up with.

Um, and it's very hard for their parents because they have to go very far to visit their kids when they live abroad.

It would be wonderful to bring their kids home and to have people be around their parents.

I'm fortunate enough that my family is still here and I'm able to be nearby to them.

But even my siblings are being are feeling the pressures of the housing here and the um impacts of it with where they're starting their lives, where they're starting their careers, and whether they can be close to their parents, to the grandparents and everyone that they care about.

So housing is an important issue for me.

I do appreciate this opportunity, and I think that it does it does the Mitchelltown homes does represent an asset to the Walnut Creek community, especially um the walk of walkable communities of the Shade Lands.

So I do support this project.

Thank you.

I too want to thank everyone who has participated in this process and who came out to speak tonight.

Um, we learn so much when we hear all the different perspectives, and that's how we can come to the best decisions in in the city that we love.

Um, so thank you to our union members who talked about how this project would bring apprenticeships right here in town for people who live here.

Thank you to our younger people who are talking about wanting to be able to live here and what it means and how life may be different.

You might not have two cars or necessarily even one car.

Um, so being able to picture what that looks like from real people who live here and want to stay here is very helpful for us to be able to picture what what it will look like when people move in to this community, um, and hearing from Joybound to be able to hear from an employer that's walking distance who has employees who would like to live and walk to work as well.

So, all of that I think gave us a little bit of a better picture of you know what this could actually look like.

Um, and I want to thank um the people from Via Monte who came here to talk about all the different concerns, particularly around construction and um and health uh questions around air quality, right?

It's so important that we monitor those things and that we do have a process, and that we are transparent about it so that if we run into problems in in the midst of construction, that everyone, the whole neighborhood can protect us, right, and can report it, and that we have the Bay Area air quality district who has those standards and they will come out and inspect.

Um, so I think I have learned so much tonight um from all of you, and hopefully you've all learned from each other as well, um, about what this project can look like and how it can be kind of a win-win for everyone here.

Um, so um, and I also want to thank the developer for being responsive to the community.

That was not a requirement given the laws um that are in place for this particular project, um, and it didn't have to happen.

Um, but I think your cooperation and trying to be responsive in the ways that you could have made it a much better project.

Just looking at the uh the design review comments about um, you know, areas where people can congregate and and picnic and play.

Um the original uh design had a place where people could trip and fall down into the middle of the thing that was just supposed to gather water, right?

We know what that's like from the parking lot of of the orchards, unfortunately.

Um, and so being able to really be responsive and be willing to invest in that change um and other changes like adding the playground, um, you know th those types of things really make a big difference um so uh I'm definitely supportive of the project as it stands I think it is needed housing um and I think it has become a better project because of everyone's input well may I just thank you all we have a bus waiting out so we have a job as usually let me make my comment that uh with a big crowd sometimes things can get a little out of hand something people can get very passionate about things and say things perhaps they regret later um this is not that kind of group um this has been a very very uh civil and uh constructive uh discussion and a lot of the points raised allowed us to get answers to some of those questions and which helps us to make the decision as well so thank you all question needing I'll keep this super short um there was a lot of comments which I thought were beautiful about children and moms and seeing that I have um two kids under seven it um I as a mommy who moved here from San Francisco living in a 700 square foot apartment with a uh a toddler and I was pregnant um anything in walnut creek seemed beautiful and loving for to raise my two girls which I'm doing right now and so to me as a mom it it meant a lot as an engineer also to know that there was a lot of thought that went into providing the silva cells which are pretty expensive underground chambers great for sustainability to be able to provide those areas for the kids and I know that sometimes you have you have to move up right so that attached product isn't probably what we're all used to with wanting you know bigger yards but I can assure you that in a lot of the developments that I've seen oh the lights going down someone sending a message I think um all I would say is that those those um alley areas that you see a lot of times they act as woo norfs which is a a livable street and I've seen it in action and other um developments and so I just I do want to address that because that was one thing that uh was brought up about where are the kids gonna play where are the moms gonna have their stroll or so um I do support this project whenever you're ready for that.

Um I think we are getting to that point uh I think that we want to do the EIR first now you shouldn't do it.

There's a motion on the certification of the EIR.

I moved that we certify the environmental impact report and adopt the mitigating mitigation monitoring and reporting program a second.

Do you call a roll commissioner strong yes yes yes turn on my microphone.

Commissioner Cound?

Yes Commissioner Klopp yes Vice Chair Knighting yes Chair Anderson yes uh motion uh the eyes have it motion carries all right someone have a motion to uh deal with the design review the vesting tentative map the density bonus the tree removal and the drip line encroachment permits I'll do it all right I move that we adopt go ahead okay go ahead all right um before I do that is it as amended because there isn't an extra condition at the end of the resolution yes it would be as amended as amended okay so I move that we adopt um the resolution to approve the vesting tentative map number ninety six eighty three final design review density bonus tree removal and tree drip line encroachment permit for Mitchelltown Homes project.

Second any further discussion.

Call a roll as amended as amended.

Commissioner quok.

Yes.

Commissioner Strongman.

Yes.

Commissioner Moran?

Yes.

Commissioner Cowd.

Yes.

Commissioner clopp.

Yes.

Vice chair Knighting.

Yes.

And Chair anderson.

Yes.

You guys have a motion carries.

Thank you very much.

And uh and it's completed.

Umbreak.

If you would uh those who are viewer leaving if you would uh do so quietly and if you want to discuss it further, um the hallway is available.

Um we'll move on to the next item.

Do you want to take five?

Uh let's take five.

Meet back here at 9.29.

I need to go on the family.

Okay.

Uh we have another hearing tonight.

Um, it is on the uh Porsche dealership.

Plan development redo.

Excuse me.

Plan development rezoned design review, tree permits, and assigned ordinance exception.

Okay.

Staff report.

Yes.

Switching gears.

Uh Simmer Gale again, City of Walnut Creek.

Um, we are here tonight now to consider the second item, which is the Porsche dealership and service center.

It is a plan development rezone and design review.

It's a recommendation from the planning commission tonight to move the project forward to the city council.

And the applicants uh team, Steven Scanlan um and his team are here tonight, as am I to answer any questions that you may have after the presentation.

And to quickly orient you with the site, it is zoned service commercial, which does allow automobile dealerships by right.

Uh the site consists of three parcels that will be merged.

Um that total 2.3 acres.

Uh the existing site has a mix of older buildings.

Um, there is a restaurant at the Mass Ays, as well as some other um underutilized buildings that are vacant.

Um, and the surrounding area consists primarily of commercial uses, however, there are residential uses on Barton Court uh directly behind this site.

I guess if you can see it here, Barton Court.

And here's just a closer look at the um existing uh site conditions and the buildings on site.

Again, just more photographs.

Here's the masses building.

Try to use this, which is located right there, fronting north main.

Uh this is the other building that's also fronting North Main.

Um this is the building that you can see that is fronting um second avenue, and then there's additional buildings that are um uh located further within the project site.

Um I have identified those with the star.

And now moving into the project information.

Uh this does in this request before you tonight uh is a construction of a new three-level auto dealership uh for Porsche, which will offer vehicle sales and service.

Um frontage improvements are also um being provided, uh, that include right of way dedication along both frontages, uh, a new six-foot wide sidewalk on second avenue, and replacement of the existing sidewalk on North Main Street, and uh the request before you tonight also includes tree removals, uh new landscaping, new trees are also proposed, uh new signage, a sign exception is requested as part of this project, and uh this project did go before the design review commission, and overall DRC did support the design and the uh PD rezone request as well and the sign exception, noting that it's in scale with the development of the following comp with the following comments, and um all of these comments have uh been addressed as part of the revised plans.

There is a condition of approval uh that does restrict um right turn on second av uh for um for test drive vehicles and then uh the lights out uh basically the business operating plan has been updated with the hours of operation.

The business will close um no later than 6 p.m.

Um, I believe all seven days of the week.

And um all of the um all of the light fixtures and the uh lights that are uh proposed as part of this project will be shielded, and there will be no spillage of off-site uh from that.

So it's screened up to protect that the West property lines.

And the conditions, those are typically standard conditions of approval that we have for all of our projects, but I believe the air quality we incorporated as because they're asking for this infill CQA exemption, and there was a memo that was prepared to justify that there was less than significant impact, so it's associated with that.

So tonight the planning commission is reviewing this project to make a recommendation on the CEQA determination, the PD ordinance, the design review, and the tree removal permits.

And this project is scheduled tentatively for March 3rd, 2026 City Council hearing where City Council will then consider the CEQA determination and consideration of all of the project entitlements.

So here is the existing site layout and circuit circulation, existing conditions on site, and this is the new proposal.

Access will be provided from both 2nd Avenue and North Main Street into this dealership.

And I just wanted to highlight that this building is located approximately 30 feet away from the closest residential neighbor on Varton Court.

And that and there which we'll go into more in detail later, but that eight foot the sorry the CMU wall that is proposed will also be located here, creating more of a buffer.

And so the project consists of two areas.

One is the main entry into the showroom, and here is the service center arrival area where customers could drop off their vehicles and the porter will take the vehicles in for service repairs.

And then the remaining areas that are highlighted here in orange are essentially Porsche staff spaces such as this is the roof, the ramp that leads up to the roof for inventory parking only, so no customer access.

Um or employee parking.

This is the partial basement, which is the ground floor.

It is located beneath the main showroom and the vehicle sale and repair area.

There are 87 vehicle inventory storage, and it also includes bicycle parking and other support functions, such as the car was interior car wash and parts storage, and again for employee and staff use only, and the entrance as mentioned earlier is off of as you come on from North Main.

This is the main floor, which is organized in three primary areas consisting of customer showroom, and that also has public restrooms that's located over here, and then the service shop and 22 service bays are back here, and all other associated support sports support spaces, such as storage areas as well.

And this is the upper level partial open air roof plan.

This includes a secondary showroom right along here.

There are offices and lounges, and the parking deck has 676 inventory spaces available.

So tonight, the applicant is requesting a planned development rezone.

It's essentially to provide flexibility.

A PD provides that flexibility to make any deviations to the city standards while meeting the overall intent of the zone, which the service commercial zone does allow auto sales and service.

And this PD is carrying over all of the other development standards and regulations, with of course redefining the FAR and then the definition of base elevation for this project.

And again, these deviations remain consistent with the overall intent and use of the current service commercial zone, and all of the remaining service commercial zoning standards will be carried over.

Really just going into more detail of the request tonight.3 FAR is permitted in the service commercial zone, and the current code the existing definition of FAR has limited things that could be excluded, and that's I have that entire thing pulled from our code, which basically this is the definition, and there are certain things that could be excluded, such as crawl spaces and garages.

So the PD will provide that flexibility.

Exclude additional accessory-like spaces.

So as the PD already allows these exclusions, the exclusions that are proposed tonight are very similar to what the code already allows, just a more is specifically more detailed, and this is what the proposal shows that we're excluding basically the accessory spaces such as mechanical rooms, storage areas, the vehicle inventory areas, stairwells, and the other change is the way the floor area is calculated, is currently it's uh you take the gross floor area to uh net lot area.

Part of this project is to calculate that with gross lot area as um shown here.

And um here it here are um basically all three of the floor plans, and I'll go into the next slide.

I think it's a closer look.

Yeah.

So all of the pink areas, which is essentially a garage, like inventory garage, um, storage, tool shed, these type of things are being excluded to meet that.3 FAR.

And everything that you see that is contributing is uh this area, which is all customer customer-facing or customer oriented spaces.

So this is required to meet the 0.3 FAR, and this has all been calculated as part of that.

So why are we doing this?

Is the big question.

Um, modern dealership uh layout basically has changed.

Um it's it's now multi-level where it integrates all of the operations into one single building.

Uh and a large portion of that building area does include these type of support support or accessory type spaces that are not really customer occupied.

And our current city code is dated where it's built for single story type surface parking dealerships.

And I provided a photo below of the existing dealership.

Um as you can see here, there's a separate buildings for or a lot of it is outdoor, right?

Like the service repair areas on the out outside of the building, uh, and then they have a separate used car storage building.

It's really so it was at that time easier to calculate the floor area for just the showroom, which would then meet the 0.3 FAR.

So, basically, this PD request will provide that flexibility to exclude those accessory support spaces from the FAR to really reflect what's functional and what is customer oriented space for this project.

And that approach does meet the FAR intent and accounts for the modern integrated operations.

And this approach essentially allows for more efficient operations and efficient use of land.

Now moving into the other request as part of the PD rezone is the height.

The existing height is the existing height allowed in the zone is 30 feet.

But basically, the site really drives the height variation for this project.

It's lower along this end where the masse site is about 124 feet.

And then it moves up to 135.

Where I have the star is like the highest existing slope that occurs in this corner.

And the way the current code reads is the base, the way the base elevation is defined as the existing or the way we measure height is basically the existing or finished grade, whichever is lower and measured to the highest point of the building.

So the request tonight is really to the base elevation will be defined as the highest existing grade on the project site.

And that highest existing grade does occur in that southwest corner as I identified with the star.

And here, if you see, so if we measure it from there, it's 135 feet, and then we go to the top of the building, it's allowed to extend up to 165 feet, but that is still within that 30 foot above the base elevation, so it meets the 30-foot height limit, consistent with measure A, but it's just the way it's being measured from the higher point rather than the existing or finished grade, which the current code allows.

We have used the same approach for Hilton Garden Inn, Oakmont, and Sprouts.

They also had slope sites, so we measured, so we're not introducing something new.

This has been done for other projects where we've measured from the highest existing grade.

And here are just some renderings of the beautiful dealership.

I'll let the applicant really elaborate more about the design intent, but it does meet the city's design review standards and guidelines as they they are providing a variation in materials.

There's articulation, the proposed landscaping, their street trees, as well as the whatever areas that they could incorporate landscaping into to really beautify the site, and all of that does meet meet the design standards.

The primary materials are the black and gray ribbed metal panels and the silver metal panels, along with a dark gray stucco, and of course the entrance, I think I have a better better slide.

Yeah, this one shows this is really the corner of North Main and Second Avenue that really shows those clear story windows.

This is where the showroom entrance is.

I have highlighted those in the or circled those with the pink, and the three highly protected trees since they're being removed.

Um the applicant will be required to pay the value of the trees because they are highly protected trees, and that is a condition of approval in your agenda packet.

In I believe the attachment attachment to, and same goes for the off-site neighboring trees.

These will all be preserved, and if there is any damage or during construction, there are conditions of approval in place for that as well.

And here is the proposed landscaping plan.

There are a total of 21 new trees being proposed.

Of those, 12 are the street trees that range in size from 24 to 36 inch box.

And the remaining, I believe, nine trees will be scattered throughout the site.

And there's also five gallon shrubs and ground cover of various types that will be also incorporated into the project.

And here is the location for the proposed steel fence.

And this is that split face CMU retaining wall that will be installed.

I believe the applicant's team has a presentation, and they'll go more into detail of how that height varies because of the slope on the parcel on the site, and how it would look if you're looking at it from or how high it will be if you're on the west side on Barton Court.

And the other request tonight is the sign exception.

Uh allows 200 square feet of sign area for any single commercial tenant or business.

That total 91 square feet in size.

However, the sign that is gonna will be installed along North Main Street, because it's that ribbed metal panel system, a backer panel, a flat backer panel is required.

So that takes that total to 145 square feet because the code requires we count the entire thing as the sign area, and uh the proposed total sign area for the entire project that includes the monument signs will be 275 square feet, and that's why the sign exception is required.

Um the here are the here's the proposed freestanding monument sign, they'll be located closer to the North Main Street frontage.

Um it is six feet in height and um less than the 25 feet 25 feet square, 25 square feet that's allowed for freestanding signs.

Here is the second freestanding sign.

This is uh more of a wayfinding or directional sign, it'll be located closer to the service repair area, closer to that second avenue side, and um it is five feet in height and total 14 square feet in size, and staff does support the sign exception because all of the signs are in scale with the building and provide are needed to provide that adequate identification.

And I'll just quickly go over the parking.

There are 48 surface parking spaces for customers and vehicle display.

The blue area you see is um this is for customer parking, and the the lighter yellow or orange color is for vehicle display, and there are a total of 123 spaces for inventory vehicle storage space inside the basement as well as the roof, and um I also wanted to point out that under AB 2097, this project is exempt from the parking requirements as is within a half a mile of a portion of the site is within a half a mile of the Pleasant Hill Bart Station, however, the applicant is providing sufficient customer parking as well as employee and inventory parking.

So, as part of the design review entitlements, the project is required to meet the city's objective design standards and guidelines, and this project meets all of those guidelines with the exception of the two that I'm going to discuss here.

The automobile sales guideline, it requires that the display parking fronting North Main cannot be uncovered, so it needs to be covered or integrated into the building element.

The applicant is requesting a waiver to that or an exception, and staff does support that exception as the primary showroom or entrance on North Main Street.

It's the closest, the outdoor display is limited and is secondary to the indoor indoor showroom.

So this will just provide or improve visibility, streetscape transparency, and also a better customer experience for someone like me who's driving by and I see a Porsche parked outside.

And the next one is for a um any new building.

Uh the parking needs to be at the rear or the side or within the structure.

And in this case, uh the applicant is providing surface parking stalls.

That's located along the primary frontage, but that's also necessary, and staff does support that because the front entrance of the showroom is um the closest.

The parking that's being provided is right in front of that showroom entrance, which is the customer entrance, and um the project does comply with all of the other design review standards and guidelines.

And um this project um is uh subject to the environmental review, and um after um after analysis and evaluation, the project did qualify for a cat categorical exemption under in-filled development project as uh the project the auto dealership does comply with the general plan and zoning, and the proposed modification is minor in nature and it still meets the um intent of the code.

Um it is less than five acres in size, and um the site is currently paved and has been previously developed, so there's really um no the site doesn't have any value as a habitat for any endangered species, and as part of the CEQA review, um for the city to really analyze and uh determine that um that we could um apply or recommend this um in fill exemption is we required the applicant to submit technical studies uh related to traffic, noise, water, and air quality, um uh and all of those studies are provided as part of your agenda packet tonight, and the results of all of those studies has um determined that it will be less than significant impacts, and the um fifth criteria to qualify for infill exemption under CEQA is that the site is currently served by all required utilities, um, and that is the case for this project, and with that staff does uh recommend that the planning commission adopt uh draft resolution attachment one providing a recommendation to the city council on the Class 32 exemption, as well as uh the second draft resolution, which is attachment two, providing a recommendation to city council on the project uh the PD ordinance rezone as well as the project um project entitlements listed on this slide, and um we did receive um several public comment letters, and I believe all of those letters have been incorporated into the agenda packet, and there are extra copies in the back for the public.

That is all I have, but I am happy to answer any questions.

Very good.

Any questions?

Mr.

Strongman.

Thank you for the presentation for detailed.

Like to talk about the um turning out, I guess it's the no right turn exiting the um facility on um second.

I'm sure Porsche will try its best to enforce that.

Is it possible we have a official city sign on the other side of the street?

Is no right turn.

Um I think I will um ask the uh city engineer uh Matt to address that because not sure if that's required or we could do that.

Hi, Matt Redmond, um city traffic engineer for City of Walnut Creek.

Um so your question is if we can put a uh city sign facing the second avenue that says no right turn, no right turn.

In but you facing which way?

Facing the oh we would face it would be if you're coming out of the service area.

I assume it's a service exit, yeah, the parking lot.

It's no right turn, so that they it will not go down.

Uh second avenue.

So you know we put signs in the public right away, and so if that would be on the city on the property, then it would be for them to put.

And I believe that this came up at DRC and that they agreed to put that sign up for a no right turn for service for test drives.

And I think you're proposing for everyone.

Through signage.

Because I think the neighbors would prefer that that all traffic goes down towards Main Street.

Yeah, so given that this sign would be facing the property.

Okay.

Thank you.

Questions?

I have a couple.

Um can you go back to the the signage uh slides there?

I wasn't sure that you mentioned extension of the sign that's counted as part of the signal.

For signage, um could you explain what that is?

Sorry, can you repeat the question?

Uh you mentioned that that uh there's 200 square feet allowed and they're each 91 and a half square feet, except that something else was included on one of the signs as part of the Oh yeah, the backer panel.

So I was really trying to show that both of these primary wall signs measure the same um they're 91 square feet in size, but because this area here, which is I guess shown right there, is a ribbed metal system panel.

It's not a flat surface.

So in order to install signage on that, they needed to incorporate a backer panel.

Really like a flat surface, right, to get the to mount the sign on it.

So I would just bigger, but just trying to show because of our city sign ordinance, it requires when we measure sign, we measure the entire area.

So that because of that reason it's the backer panel, it gets incorporated into that total signage.

So that takes their number up slightly higher because of the panel.

Um so if I look at the rendering there, it appears that that backer panel is the same color as the wall.

Correct.

Um so basically you wouldn't see it.

Correct.

Yeah.

Um okay.

Thank you.

Um and then I had um on the two redefinitions that come up.

Um the first one is the base elevation.

Um, and it said that you know it has to uh you have to choose the base elevation that with a plan development that it has a is the covers the intent of the the requirement.

Um, and it says that the picking the highest point on the site is more accurate and reasonable, and I'm not quite following why that is.

I mean it would seem to me that you could pick the bottom of the site.

That would also be you quite accurate.

Um, whether it would be reasonable, I mean it suppose depends on how you're building the building.

Um, but I'm not sure why.

It sort of sort of makes it sound like that the high point is the obvious choice, and I'm not sure why that would be.

Well, I think because there's topographical constraints uh and as mentioned on the slide, uh the slope drives the height variation and it is lower on one end.

So if we were to measure the entire building off of that site, then obviously it would exceed because you're measuring it from the existing or finished existing grade, which would be to the highest point, would then appear to be taller even though it's not taller, but it's because of the slopes.

So just hypothetically.

Yeah.

If the if the topic topography was reversed, you had a low point at the at the intersection and it went up the back.

Um so that they most people would see it.

Their view of it would be on that that corner at the low point, which would now could be if you take the highest elevation, you'd be looking at a you know, much much higher building than would be anticipated.

So is it because that high point is actually right at the point of greatest visibility that that makes the most sense?

Do you want to take a sound of that?

So we we use this technique and for buildings such as this that are that are taller than what our what our existing are codified base elevation definition would allow.

This building is taller than what would be allowed using our standard base elevation.

And so this gives us the flexibility to allow modern dealership is what it does.

So I'm just trying to think of the the rationale for choosing that particular base level.

Aside from it allows a taller building.

Which is sort of obvious, but um it's it's it's the the building height is measured from that highest point.

So regardless of where, regardless of where the foundation of the building is, which is likely gonna be lower than that point, you're still, you know, that whatever's below that is is below the line and and it's not counted towards building height.

Okay.

Um and then with the FAR.

You redefined that to exclude spaces.

Are those the types of spaces that are often excluded or are they usually counted?

If there were not a plan development where you could redefine them.

Under the I guess the definition of rentable floor area, it does exclude these type of use uh like support spaces or um storage areas.

Uh so in our code we do have something that in this case it looks like is excluding about two-thirds of the building.

It's exp it's a it's an expanded list of of net edit out of netted outs uses and how you use the space.

And again, it's a reflection of a modern dealership.

Okay.

Other questions, comments?

The staff?

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um I'll ask the applicant to uh send.

You have up to 15 minutes if you wish.

Good evening.

Um, I'm Steven Scanlan, applicant.

Um, you covered everything.

I'm gonna keep this short because I know it's it's late.

Um so you why we're here.

Um, okay.

You're gonna use that.

Yeah.

Um why we're here.

Retention of the dealership in Walnut Creek, um consolidation of the facilities, as Simra mentioned before, it's on multiple facilities.

We're we've integrated all into a single dealership.

Uh relocation from uh leased land to owned land, which will allow us to stay inside the city much much longer.

We had about five years left on the current lease, and then we're gonna be looking for space.

And then obsolescence avoidance.

Um we're at that point where the old dealership is no longer meeting the brand standards, and if we don't if we don't upgrade, we we have to go.

Um we're at right right now, Porsche is at a generation five dealership.

This meets and exceeds the extent the intent of a den a Gen 5 dealership.

Um it's a brand standard upgrade.

Um we've integrated the program, we've reprogrammed and replanned the dealership to meet current operational needs.

What typically happens with dealerships is as they age and new facilities are required, they sort of tuck them in where they can, not necessarily where they should be.

So the footprints become incredibly uh inefficient in operation.

What we've done is I shouldn't say wezler and uh and Allegro have replanned, reprogrammed the site and integrated all what would be oftentimes external facility internally and captured.

So you don't see it, you don't hear it, um it it doesn't exhaust.

It's treated all inside the facility, which we think is a better way to operate a modern dealership.

And then additionally, there are new um diagnostics and other other components to the dealership that have been added that currently don't exist in the in the existing footprint.

Um it's a planned development, and as I I won't rehash everything that Simmer went through, she did a good job of covering it.

Um we think that we've we've updated the dealership zoning consistent with what the SC zone allows, and as Simmer mentioned, there are things in dealerships today that 25 years ago weren't imagined and are really back of house.

They're not they're not part of the uh public facing space.

Um the other thing that I think she touched on, um, and I think this goes to your your comment about grades.

This is a really challenging site.

It it breaks in a bunch of different ways.

In order to get in order to integrate the program, bring it all inside.

We think we picked the most efficient footprint with the least uh visual impact, but we can and it does capture the corner, which is the launch off point.

Uh so we we think that this is a minimalist approach to uh this particular site.

Um as Simmer mentioned, uh, we're look we're looking for an infill exemption.

We provided four studies: traffic, air, noise, and water.

Um traffic, we have a reduction of 320 320 trips.

For air, our construction operations, and health risk assessment are all below allowed limits.

Um for noise, construction was less than significant, ground vibration is less than significant, and operational noise is either shielded or enclosed or attenuated.

So we think we really minimize the impact to the surrounding neighbors.

Um as for uh water, uh all of our storm water, both for construction and post construction, meet all of the water resource control boards uh permit requirements.

So we're we're very compliant, we're we're extremely compliant on that.

And now I'll let James take you through the site planning.

Thank you, Stephen.

Good evening, good evening, everyone.

Um, my name is James Spence.

I'm an architect with Ginsler.

Um, want to start by thanking everyone for taking their time to hear us tonight, especially this late in the evening.

Um, Simmer did an excellent job walking you through our project.

So I'm just going to hit um the very high level notes and keep this brief.

Can I use this guy?

Yeah, and have you highlight it like this.

Ooh, I gotta get me one of these.

This is nice.

All right, so here I'm gonna, it's not on full screen.

There we go.

Okay, so just to walk you through a few of our high points to walk you through our project.

So I wanted to start with site access.

Um, we have two, as Simmer mentioned.

We have one off of North Main here towards the northwest east corner, and then one in the south east uh southwest corner there on second avenue.

We have two main approaches for our customers for the site.

One will be those customers that pull onto the site, they will park on the site, and they will walk into our showroom.

The second is for the customers to pull onto the site into the service drive, at which point the valets or the porters will take their cars, they'll usher them into either the shop or into a service space, which is located either in the basement of the building or up on the parking deck.

So that's kind of our um our customer journey that we have on the site there.

And then uh for the uh wanted to point out the the fire lane that we have, so uh you can kind of see it's located there, uh running from one curb cut to the next.

So uh that is going to be our fire lane.

Um we have extended the width of that to um adhere to the fire apparatus width that is the requirement by the city or um from the fire department.

The western uh pop property line is something that we wanted to take some time to focus on today, and that is the eight-foot CMU wall that Simmer mentioned.

That takes place on the west property line here along that drive and along that 30 foot building setback that we have.

So that CMU wall will run eight feet off of the property or off of the uh the ground level.

So the elevation, um it's a little harder to see because it's small here, um, but this is kind of showing an elevation if you were to look at it from the west side of the wall.

It will maintain that eight-foot datum from the ground floor or from the ground plane as that shifts and grows larger, grows taller as you move down the site, down the property line.

So what we believe this CMU wall is going to do is help block any noise that is coming from our site, and then also it will help with uh the light spill over into the western property line.

So we want to be respectful of our neighbors west of west of our property.

So we feel that this sound barrier and lighting barrier will be a good addition to our site for those reasons.

We have kept our loading zone to the northeast corner of our site.

That's the space you see here.

That will be for parts deliveries, also for the oil, oil transfer that they have to have on a about a weekly basis.

And then speaking of signage, just to touch on one signage uh point that um Simmer didn't, which is the we have the two signs, the two large wall-mounted signs, one facing North Main, and then one facing second avenue.

Both of those will be internally illuminated.

The one on second avenue will be placed on a timer so that when the sun sets, the lighting levels for that sign are going to drop significantly so that we again avoid any lighting spillover into the uh the property west of us.

And then after that, we have our mechanical screening was the last thing I was going to point out here, but that'll be better shown on.

So from each of our points of egress from the building, we have worked with the city to uh ensure that we have an accessible pathway from each of those egress points to the public way, both on 2nd Avenue and on North Main Street, which are shown here.

Um we also have also have our accessible pathway to the uh the dumpster enclosure in the northeast side of the site.

This sheet is showing kind of the existing grade that both Steven and Simmer touched on earlier, showing the significant drop and the modifications that we needed to make to our design in order to respond to this grading, which is why we have our ground floor plane is where the customers walk into the showroom and the shop or the uh basement is where you enter on the lower side towards the north of the site.

We are taking careful consideration with our site lighting to make sure that we are avoiding any spillover into the neighboring properties.

So we will be shielding all uh light fixtures on our rooftop parking uh as well as our site poles, too.

And then these are just showing the um the specifications for those fixtures.

Ummer already did a pretty good job touching on our types of parking throughout the facility, so I won't I won't repeat any of that.

And then just uh one more uh kind of uh tag for the materiality used for the exterior elevations.

So, like Steven mentioned, this is our gen 5 design for Porsche.

Um so we have a handful of materials that we are suggested to use uh from the the OEM.

We have our silver metal panel, that's what uh will face that um the corner of north and main, so it's kind of giving that iconic Porsche dealership look where all of the storefront end as well, and then we have the uh Porsche black metal panel, which is the ribbed metal panel that Simmer mentioned.

It's more of a dark gray, it's not entirely black, but that's what's going to be wrapping um the most of the shop towards the rear of the site.

Um we will have uh an accent band of white metal panel that kind of uh runs alongside the main entry point there.

Um and then the rest of the um the rest of the building, as I said, will be either the uh the black metal panel or um a stucco that's painted to match.

And that about wraps up my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Uh any questions?

The applicant, Commissioner Count.

Um thank you for your presentation.

Um I think my only question is um the way that cars come in and out of uh Main Street and second, is it a one-way or is it a two-way they can go both?

Both curb cuts will be two-way.

Okay.

Um and so then um can you talk about what it is that you've agreed to as far as cars coming out onto second avenue?

Because I'm not I'm still not clear if that's all cars, no right turn.

Yeah, I'll take this one.

So there's been a lot of conversation about the second half entry and exit, right?

Um couple things.

Uh test drives will not go up second half.

Not only because the public doesn't want it.

I'm sorry.

Not only because the public doesn't want it, but it's not practical for the dealership.

It's a lot when you bring someone into a uh a new car that they're not familiar with and you run them up residential streets, you're just asking for trouble.

So from a liability point of view, the dealership has no interest in driving test driving up second out.

With a Porsche, particularly they'll go out onto North Main Street and then probably out on the 680, because people want to drive a Porsche, right?

Um, the other thing is that if if people currently if people live in the neighborhood that are are going to the Porsche dealership, a quarter mile down the street.

If they come down second street, they make a left onto North Main and they go to the dealership and they return the same way.

We're not creating the only other trips that we would be creating would be trips created for uh test drives.

We're and we're doing those up the street right now, and we're not going back into the neighborhood.

There's just no reason to do it.

Um, we have no problem putting in a no right turn sign if that if that helps.

Uh but if there's a if there's a resident of Walnut Creek that wants to go up second street, they're going to exit on North Main.

They're going to make a right and a right and go up second street.

So, you know, I don't think we're creating any more any more trip or any more uh traffic on second.

I think that's more of a fear than it's a reality than a reality.

Questions.

Uh thanks guys.

Um somebody tell me I'm sure it's probably my fault for not being able to find it.

The back, the the west side.

Um, what is that?

Is it the glass and the and like the I guess let me let me if I'm standing in Varton Court, which is this the street, the court just to the west of the west side of the building, and I'm looking, you know, if I got a shot through the trees, what am I looking at?

That would be this elevation right here.

So you're going to see you're going to see the black metal panel, uh the ribbed metal panel.

We have an overhead door, uh high speed overhead door that goes into our shop, but that remains closed most of the time.

Um and then uh this is an overhead door that leads to the service drive.

Um, and then this is the the silver metal panel that's wrapping the showroom.

And then to the west of that you're to the west of that you're also looking at a wall.

Right.

There's a wall, eight foot wall.

Yeah, right.

It's follows the grade.

Okay.

And the and the panels are there's silver panels.

They're it's not glass, I guess, is no, there is there is no glass on that on that west facade.

I'm just thinking about privacy if you're if I if I'm on Burton Court.

Okay.

Thank you.

Vice Chair.

Eating.

I have two I have two questions.

Um, about this whole height thing, um I don't see anywhere on the back side of it.

Well, first of all, if you were to if if I'm not mistaken, if you were to calculate it from the lowest point, then the front of your building on the east side would only be 15 feet high.

So I I did calculate that.

But what's interesting is that then on the east side, then from existing grade, which is negative 15 feet all the way to the top of the parapet.

It's actually 45 and a half feet.

Uh, sorry.

It's I actually there there is no di there there's like a blue dimension that's 45.

I'm not I'm not seeing 30 feet, or or maybe or maybe it's because when I count from level zero to level two, that is 30, but then there's a there's an increase, and maybe that's that parapet of that darker building.

I don't know.

I just didn't see 30 anywhere.

That's what I was like curious.

Do you see like the I know I can zoom in right here?

This is why.

But you guys can't.

Um, I d I mean I I don't see 30 anywhere.

I see everything is above 30, but I I trust you guys, I guess.

I think I think you can spot it.

Might be pointing the wrong direction.

There's a 30 from level one to level two is where the third is where that 30 is being.

For the other but for the uh but so you're talking about this this elevation here, because there's no there's no dimension to the top, right?

So you start at negative 15 six inches, and then to basically in my brain, to be honest with you, I counted 21 plus the 15 uh minus two.

And I was like that that that seems like it's more than 30 feet, but maybe it's not because I'm just exhausted.

But I was like, I I I think that's more than 30 feet.

The only place that you have the 30 feet is on the other side, but maybe my math is off.

Are you looking at the western elevation?

I'm just counting this.

You start at negative, and when you go to here.

Commissioner, I think what's missing is is the base elevation.

The base, yeah.

What we'll what we'll do is add a base elevation line through all the elevations.

Yeah.

Um, you can see where the zero is.

Yeah.

And and I only bring that up because um the chair brought up why are you counting it from the top?

And when I look at it, it's because frankly, then your glass building would only be 15 feet high if we didn't allow that.

So that was one main point that I that I noticed.

Uh my name's Austin, I'm a civil engineer on the project.

Um I wanted to say that the base plane elevation is primarily a visibility calculation.

Uh and certainly you would take the visibility calculation from the most prominent corner on the site, which would be the signalized intersection.

And so the the discrepancy in the algebra there is because the existing elevation there is higher than our finished floor.

So were you walking that door of our future building?

The existing elevation is higher than that.

That's the leftover dimension that you're not finding.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, and then last but not least, um, though I was reading through your operate business operation plan, which thank you for including about because there was so much public comment about test drives and sales, and so I like that you had that, but my my question is how many employees I I saw a number there for just one shift.

I'm just curious, how many employees generally speaking does will this employ?

It's only a single shift.

It's one shift at a time.

Okay.

It's just a single shift.

So it's the 43.

Yeah.

Every day.

Yeah okay thank you questions all right thank you very much well uh my public comment um we have several uh speaker slips um if you wish to speak and you haven't filled out a speaker slip please do so now and we'll get started so this time Lana we had the chance twice in the last hearing will will now be up followed by Jordan Hello everybody good evening I'm very sleepy I'm gonna try to put my mind together so I can um speak um but yeah my name is Lana and I'm the immediate neighbor um 24 Vartancourt so we will be sharing a wall with our friends and um I'm not opposed to the project as long as you know like it takes into consideration the local community the immediate neighbors and the economic health and the environmental impact so um a few of my concerns uh first the noise um it says that um based on what I glanced the repair shop uh the noise generated uh from the service shop will radiate through the open roll-up door why is this door open because the the approval was based on the notion that this is gonna be a futuristic state of the art building enclosed everything goes inside so I don't think it's anything should be open um and also it states that the shop hours will be 7 a.m to 10 p.m so I don't know where the discrepancy is coming if this is a discrepancy but I don't I don't think 7 a.m to 10 PM service shop should be like a good hours and um and why is the shop in the residential area like the entrance it's right where the residents but anyway um so it appears that there'll be 40 48 parking spaces outside and 72 uh parking spaces on the open rooftop so basically the building it's really not as enclosed as it sounded to be at the beginning so that's noise that's a safety concern um from my perspective and also it says that the rooftop lights will be kept overnight for safety uh purposes so the different the distance between me and you guys this is exactly the distance between me and the building so with when we bypass the the the height regulations um we I'm gonna end up with this huge building zero morning light noise and um I mean yeah it's good for the city but for the immediate neighbors and also the wall we were thinking to um it's better the the dividing wall to be 10 feet as opposed to eight feet because that's gonna help with the noise that's gonna help with the safety and also cameras the concern was the cameras um if there were cameras on that site if all these cameras will capture our houses if that's gonna that's gonna be like a privacy um issue um for us and the setback of the building is like yeah again 30 feet is gonna be very close, very tall, and not as quiet as we thought it would be because the service shop is right next to right next to us.

So, yeah, and also with the construction.

Um, if you could wrap it up.

Well, yes, so we with the construction, uh, the one of the most important things is the pest control, rodents and um cockroach control because all these build buildings are so junky, and then when the demo starts, this thing, we're gonna get infested.

So with the pest control, we demand that to be done, like before everything else, and that we, if possible, to be informed of you know of the situation.

If it's like if it's a really bad situation, what what to expect?

Thank you very much.

Yeah, Jordan.

Good evening, my name is Jordan Bluestein, resident of Quiet View Court on Second Avenue.

I'm a member of the neighborhood group, Markey Park Neighbors United.

I use Second Avenue at the building site daily, and I appreciate the project's landscape and architectural design.

It improves the site visual and environmental quality.

However, I have concerns regarding neighborhood traffic impacts, specifically on 2nd Avenue, a narrow residential street not suited for commercial activity.

I respectfully request that the planning commission prohibit service and sales test drives on second avenue.

I'm requesting an MUT CD compliant, no right turn sign, installed at the dealership exit at 2nd Avenue.

Additionally, I request implementing a curb design to deter right turns on 2nd Avenue.

Signage alone is often ignored.

These measures align with recommendations from a design review commission and the city's commitment to neighborhood safety.

Thank you for your attention to both the design and neighborhood impacts of this project.

And thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

We have Keith.

Keith O'Hara.

And then Sarah Keller.

Hi, thanks.

Uh my name's Keith O'Hara.

I have a construction company across the street on Second Avenue from the site.

Um Eco Performance Builders.

Um I also own the building that I bought a few years ago.

I'm excited to see something there.

It's been dilapidated for a long time and burglarized about 12 times.

I was burgerized last Sunday for super after Super Bowl.

Um so I do like uh something new going in, so there's not crazy buildings and people living in them and things.

So um, but second avenue is pretty crazy.

So uh that I'm one building in from the corner of 2nd Avenue, North Main, and it gets backed up there, like it's it's crazy.

Like I opened my door in my truck when I park in my shop, and I you have to be careful.

Uh, it's just an impacted street, a lot of people drive down it.

Um I don't know why we would exit out of that building at all on that side, even if you did turn left, like that's right where the traffic jam is.

Like people go as fast as they can to get to that stoplight for some reason.

I don't know what the hurry is, but um, and it's just a difficult thing.

You see the signage on second avenue, like hey, this is where you go into the porch dealership.

I don't really understand that because second avenue is a mess.

So um it's a residential street where a lot of people use it to commute to get to Buena Vista or wherever they're going.

Um and then cars on Main Street, like we're surrounded by car dealerships out there, right?

Which is great.

Um, but they're mainly unloading cars in the median on North Main.

Um, and so is that gonna happen on 2nd Avenue?

Because that will be a disaster.

So if anyone's planning on unloading cars on 2nd Avenue, I could tell you me and my neighbor building, which is on there's only three businesses right there on 2nd Avenue plus this one, and uh that will be really really bad.

So I don't know if that's the plan where cars are gonna be unloaded, and see anything in the plans about that.

Um, so you know, I I'm not really sure what's going on there.

And then uh I didn't get a notice for this hearing.

We found out two days ago there was one stamp on a poll right by Mass A's.

I happened to do my little walk, and I saw it.

My neighbor business also didn't get a notice.

Um, I'm literally right across the street.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Sarah.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Sarah Keller.

I'm a nurse and 23-year resident on Salah Court, the second court that was listed on the picture behind the west wall of the suggested dealership.

There are serious concerns for residents regarding our physical safety walking past high performance sports cars onto second avenue.

The proposal, thank you.

Wisely states no right turns, but nothing is exempting an eastbound return, which is also a problem that was just mentioned on 2nd Avenue.

So how can we completely keep this traffic off 2nd Avenue?

People already drive faster than 50 miles an hour in this 25 mile an hour zone.

And I personally have seen or been aware of three fatalities at that intersection of North Main and Second Avenue.

Another high concern that I have is privacy.

Nearly all of the west side residents are families with young children.

The idea of having a 30 to 45 to 145 however you're reading that glass building um height with staff and patrons looking directly into our backyards through a 12-hour day is disturbing.

Why is Porsche placing the building so close to residents who are only located on the west side instead of north facing with a larger defensible space?

What allowances will the city of Walnut Creek give to residents who are affected?

Can we extend our fences higher than the current six-foot regulations to protect the privacy of our children and families families?

Lastly, noise for the same reasons of adjacency and objectionable building proximity.

Why would Porsche place 22 service bays facing the sole shared residential border simply for commercial aesthetics on North Main?

Why not design bays away from the residents?

An eight-foot mason wall does not seem equitable for the noise generated from 22 bays of 500 to 900 horsepower vehicles.

It's improbable to assume that the 26 foot rolling doors will be down all the time because of airflow and safety.

So the we have to think about proposed operating times.

What it was differently listed in the packet.

Some were five, six that we heard now, seven, ten p.m.

Like to ask if this was your backyard and you were trying to host a meal, um, have a children to rest or go to sleep.

What time would you like the noise to stop?

I thank you for your late audience.

Thank you very much.

Barry.

Hi guys, I'll be quick.

My name is Barry Tyrus.

Uh I'm a 50-year resident of Walnut Creek.

I bought some stuff from the pictures back there.

Um I was director of uh children's program for 25 years at Walnut Acres Children's Center, and may the mayor's children attended, and they're doing very well in school.

The issue here is the social utility of the action of the site versus the social utility of the quiet, safe use of their homes by all the residents of second avenue.

No right turn signage is not going to be enough.

It has to be a physical barrier because if you look left on Main Street, you're not going that way.

It's it's nuts at five o'clock.

They have to go right, and that's what all of you might do anyway, even though the sign is there.

Uh it's it's it's I don't see that barrier physical in the plan yet.

Um when Chick-fil-A opened 15 approximately 15 years ago on Main Street.

Uh the the uh PC, you guys and uh city council underestimated the problem of traffic congestion, and it's still is there?

Uh can this also be the problem now?

I'm not sure.

Uh uh Matt Francois uh uh city council uh member apologized for the Chick-fil-A disaster.

Anyway, how many um how many um employees will there be?

It says 46 is shift since the shifts are over eight hours, uh except on Sunday.

I know you addressed that, and that's fine.

You know, if you're gonna keep it that, but you're gonna pay overtime then if they're gonna vote be working nine, 10 hours.

Some of those guys, I mean that's fine, but um there might be more traffic congestion.

Uh there's only 48 spots for employees.

Only and how will this parking um on second avenue?

I how will this impact the location of the part of the parking uh that the other people might have to park at?

You know, to and finally uh read the letters from Jessica Clark.

She writes very well, it's in the packet, and uh the access lasting.

Fail to address how do you access when you come out on second avenue and you go left, you know, uh from the dealership.

You're gonna have to go left on Main Street again, but then you're gonna have to cross over uh that median and and Chick-fil-A.

If you all are familiar with that, it's it's gonna be another uh boondoggle right at the end if you're gonna have to turn into the enter it on main street.

Um, thank you.

Okay, I appreciate it.

And no hamburger selling, okay.

And Steve Signorelli.

That's last one.

James, you owe me a text back by the way.

Okay.

Uh sorry it's so late.

Obviously, it's been a rough night for everyone.

I will try to keep this as quick as I can.

Uh, number one, the light pollution thing.

Uh they're asking for an exemption to have basically 24-7 lighting.

It's honestly not really acceptable.

Uh I understand they want to secure their inventory, but they can easily put in their night vision cameras that would provide some of the same utility and just keep the lighting on the front of the building away from the residents.

Uh there also I haven't seen any mention of gating on the property to secure everything.

I think that would be also effective besides the lighting.

If you've ever been in that area at night, the Subaru dealership has made the sky purple.

I don't want to see a repeat with the Porsche dealership, please.

It's honestly it looks so uh alien.

It doesn't look good on uh walnut creek at all.

Um I would like to see trees where the roll-up doors are going to be to block any further noise that's coming from the shop door opening and closing, and when they keep it open likely during summer months when it's too damn hot.

Um I haven't heard anything about fire suppression, they're going to have EVs on site being worked on with large capacity batteries.

There have been numerous studies on the health implications of EV fires and the vapors that are toxic to not only the people attempting to fight the fire, but within hundreds of feet of the actual fire.

I have seen no revisions to address their fire abatement approach.

It needs to be on this review, period.

And as far as the sign goes, it's absolutely the city's responsibility to get a sign that says no right turn onto second avenue.

It's not up for debate.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

I hope it resonated.

I believe I believe that that is all the slips that I have.

Okay.

And uh I will turn it back to the applicant.

You have 10 minutes to respond or answer some of the questions that arose.

So um, yeah, I'll touch on a few of the concerns um that were voiced during public comment.

So um, so right, the the shop door on the west side.

So I will I'll restate that the west facade does not have any glass on it.

There's no um visibility from the interior of the store onto the west side of the site.

Um, and then the overhead shop door uh is a high-speed right, so um yes, uh the shop is conditioned, so the door will remain closed for the majority of for pretty much the entire time, except for the few seconds, it will open for a car to come in or leave, and then it will drop back down.

Um so that should uh remain closed for a majority of the day.

Um vehicle delivery that was mentioned.

Uh, that will not take place on 2nd Avenue.

That will take place on our site uh at the northeast corner where that loading zone is located.

Um, so that will not take place on either North Main nor Second Avenue.

Um I think that's all I had.

Was there anything else you wanted to?

Yeah, uh we did photometric studies and they're part of the uh design package.

And the lights are shielded, they're downlighted, and there's no light spill off the property.

And our sky can't purple, can't it?

There's no direct light, but the sky is literally purple.

Well, you won't have a purple sky.

Don't want a light sky either.

You won't have a white sky either.

No, these are shielded down lights, and they they're on a dimmer.

I still think we should go with my vision cameras.

It would be a little more elegant.

Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me.

It's their time to speak.

They have 10 minutes.

I have two.

I I it's their time to speak, please.

I wanted to address the um possible traffic mitigation, traffic calming solutions for the driveway on second.

We are very limited in what we can do there because that is a fire aerial apparatus lane.

It needs to be 26 feet wide.

It can't have crazy bumps in it or crazy slopes or anything like that.

So unfortunately, signage is the best we can do there and still meet the fire code.

I also wanted to note that this building is fully sprinklered, that we're adding fire hydrants, that there's uh FDC we're adding, uh, and post indicator valve fire blankets.

Okay.

Um Commissioner Klopp.

Can you just clarify the hours of operation?

Because I've heard a couple of different things.

So I don't know what was the latest.

Is it sound like a change?

In particular, the service area.

Yeah, so service hours will be 8 a.m.

to 6 p.m.

five days a week, Saturdays from 9 a.m.

to 5 p.m.

Showroom hours will be 9 a.m.

to 6 p.m., six days a week, and then Sundays from 11 a.m.

to 5 p.m.

So that implies that it wouldn't the service area would never be operating after six.

No sir.

Okay.

Um, as far as uh the wall height.

Um, you know, given the the topography.

Uh I can understand the people onto the west of the site being concerned about um privacy, but you know, the privacy is is the noise is attenuated by a large wall.

Um, is there any plan to treat the wall as far as uh, you know, any decorative elements or um plantings that will grow over it, or you know, anything like that.

Um I'm thinking, you know, the the sound walls along the highways, you know, they they tend to be, you know, have have interesting masonry and and uh vines growing on them and so forth.

Is there any plan to do anything like that to soften that that's just what's in the landscaping plan currently?

Yeah, we we do have planning along that that edge on the outside between it's actually between the dealership and the wall.

It's on the east side, there isn't much space to do uh much between the wall and our west property line because of the existing trees that are there.

So we're wanting to maintain those existing trees and so that's the reason we just don't have much room for any landscaping on the west side of that wall.

Okay.

Um a comment about 24-7 lighting.

Um you say it's it's downlighting um, not polluting the sky.

Um, is it on 24-7 uh the exterior lighting and um and is it different on the west side than the rest of the building?

So the lighting on the parking deck will be aimed away from the west property line.

The fixtures on the roof deck will and as well as the site lighting poles will be shielded so there won't be any direct light um visible uh from the West property line.

Um, and then like Steven mentioned earlier, they will be on set on a dimmer just as the uh Porsche sign on the second avenue sign.

So they will dim uh when the sun does go down.

Okay.

Uh and finally, uh I'm not sure if Porsche's big into electric vehicles yet, but um the question of battery fires is is certainly one.

Is there some uh special suppression fire suppression?

So we have a um you flip to the page, we have a battery storage space in the northeast corner of the site that's attached to our dumpster enclosure.

So it is right here, so and we are working with the city to provide the required fire suppression for that battery space.

Okay, so I have anyone else?

Questions.

All right.

Sorry, Brent, Commissioner, real quick.

Commissioner Moran.

Um thank you, uh gentlemen.

There's been some talk about a sign.

Uh and I believe you may have mentioned that you'd be amenable to the concept of a no-right churn sign.

I just figured since you guys are sitting at the standing up there, yeah.

We have no we have no problem with the no right turn sign, putting it on the dealership.

It's just as um uh Austin pointed out, we have some limitations as to what we can do topographically, at that entry.

Okay, thank you.

So that's your response to the request for the curb, the the that they were talking about is the port shop that can't be done because of the we have to have fire access there.

That's where the apparatus come in.

Okay, any other questions?

Not uh thank you very much, and uh we'll close the public hearing.

And bring it back to the uh commission comments, questions.

I'll start out.

I think it's a very good project.

Uh it's a very much need something needed to happen with that site, and it's not a fast food restaurant with a dry-through, which is a good point right there.

Uh I would encourage to have any no right turn sign on that entrance, and it's yeah, no right turn.

So that um it discourages people going down second avenue.

But it fully support the project.

I would uh I live actually at the far end of second avenue on Pona Vista.

So I am very familiar with that road, and it's you know, if I were testing out a new car, I would not choose that road to drive down.

Um it might be might be useful to uh uh perhaps come up with something if you know if people are driving out on their own, they can see the no ride turn sign, but there might be something just a little thing you can put in the car that says, you know, please avoid second street, because there's no reason they need to be on it, and it's probably not useful for them or us nor the people that are around there.

Um that might be helpful.

Uh Commissioner Count.

So also just to clarify for the public, um, we're not the final decision makers here, we're making recommendations to the city council, correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

I mean the the way I'm seeing it, the if I'm reading this correctly, and everything that you just presented, the pro this project is consistent with the general plan, land use and zoning, notwithstanding those two minor items, which was the height, which sorry I didn't get that for a second, and um how you calculate the FAR net versus gross.

So I did want to just again, we're not we're not the decision makers, but when I'm looking at this, I'm looking for consistency with what exactly was already part of the general plan designation and any applicable policy and zoning designation.

So I should um I'm also I'm not entirely sure I understand the rationale for the high point, except that it is the most visible spot on the on the property, but uh the way the building is is set there.

Um the uh the height at that point is is a 30 feet, and not counting the mechanical on top.

Um and the height at the back end is you know well below uh 30 feet on the against the baseline elevation, but also not not very high.

Um against the actual ground underneath it.

Um I'm I can I can accept those those heights.

Um it's uh even without entirely understanding the rationale.

Um I'm I do I do have some concerns about uh the people immediately to the west.

Um because it's uh it's a significant size of the facility is significant.

Um a lot of employees doing a lot of work there during the day.

Um I'm I'm glad to hear that you know that shuts down by six.

Uh so people can enjoy their dinner and go to sleep.

Um I'm not sure what what further one could do.

One could raise the wall a little higher, that would help a bit with the noise.

Um but then it would be an even more imposing wall uh facing the residential area.

So I'm not sure that's really a a good solution.

Um I think anything that one could be done um to make that wall less monolithic, as viewed from the outside uh from the west, would be uh uh much appreciated by the people there.

But all I've got.

Mr.

Klopp.

Thank you.

I'll just briefly thank everyone for coming and staying this late and staying awake this late.

Um when I look at this project, I think of a site that's unfortunately quite underutilized and really an eyesore right now, and an opportunity to improve it, keep an important business here in Walnut Creek, uh, seems like an a good thing for us to do.

And so I think the uh planners and the team have done a good job listening to the neighbors, trying to address the concerns and building a nice-looking uh dealership, and so I do support it.

Um so I think this is one of those examples of where measure A makes things rather challenging for our city to uh allow um businesses um as things move forward into the future um and the way that things change.

Um there's certain types of businesses that that can't be in our city because of measure A.

Um, and I think the creativity of building on a hill has happened a few times already um to try to to try to incorporate um businesses for for businesses like this to be able to stay in our city.

Um so that I think it just creates some um it's one of those unintended consequences of um you know a a citizen's initiative is that as things change, you know, the council cannot change um the only way to change something like that and adapt is for the citizens to to make a change.

Um so there are some creative uh um uses that have been happening, it appears.

Um, and uh it it creates some bizarre incentives, right, to build on a hill if you need uh something that's slightly taller.

Um but here we are.

Um I would suggest just in terms of the right turn lane um or the no right turn.

Sorry, it's getting late.

In terms of the no right turn, um I would like to suggest that um we edit the resolution.

So on page eight of attachment two um for the draft resolution to just uh in the third paragraph to just cross out um vehicles test drives from so that it would say additionally a condition of approval has been incorporated to restrict turning right.

So you take out restrict vehicle test drives from.

Does that make sense?

So I'd like to recommend that as an amendment.

All right.

Um would you like to make a well actually we we need two motions?

One we have two resolutions.

The first is on CEQA, and then perhaps you'd like to make the second one which would include your amendment.

Um I note that uh if we go past 11, we are um according to the municipal code required to complete this.

So let's do that.

Um I have a motion on the CEQA resolution.

Um okay, so the CQA resolution.

I move that we adopt the resolution recommending the findings and determination that the proposed Porsche dealership project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the class 32 infill development exemption, uh Portia dealership PD ordinance rezone.

Second, all right.

Any further discussion?

Uh, call the roll.

Commissioner Quok.

Yes, Commissioner Strongman.

Yes.

Commissioner Moran?

Yes.

Commissioner Cound?

Yes.

Commissioner Klopp?

Yes.

Vice Chair Knighting?

Yes.

Chair Anderson?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much.

And I have a uh motion on the second resolution.

All right.

So I move to approve the recommendation to City Council for PD ordinance, design review, tree permits, and sign ordinance exception, application number Y25-058.

Um with uh the amendment to it on page eight to cross out the words vehicle desk test drives from the third paragraph.

And uh chair, if I may, just to add to that, we actually have I looked at the resolution.

There's a condition about test drive, so that condition that's under planning number three.

Oh thank you.

So that would also be modified um given your amendment.

That's the motion.

Yes.

Thank you.

Very good.

Second.

Hold on.

Any comment?

Take the roll.

Okay.

Commissioner Count.

Yes.

Commissioner Strongman.

Yes.

Commissioner Moran?

Yes.

Commissioner Quok?

Yes.

Commissioner Klopp.

Yes.

Vice Chair Knighting.

Chair Anderson.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you all very much for your patience.

This is uh the longest meetings we've had in a few years.

Thank you very much.

Um, are there any commission considerations?

Uh no.

Or commission member and staff reports or announcements.

Not at this time.

Not at the slate date.

Uh in that case, we are adjourned.

1058.

Well done.

No need to make uh no need to extend the meeting.

Yeah.

So you're claiming that's a minute, three minutes fast.

Oh,