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 the public communications.

Let me take a little minute to explain that because I have a hunch.

We're going to have a lot of public communications tonight.

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 that has to wait until those hearings come up.

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

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

Seeing none.

Okay.

All right.

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

Closer.

Closer.

Okay.

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

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

Since we don't have any comments now, but we will have during the hearings.

When the hearing comes up, the applicant will have 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.

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

Each of you will have two minutes.

We have a lot of cards already.

Um 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 this week?

Commissioner Count.

Yes, I did meet with uh representatives from Via Monte as well as with signature development group to listen to their concerns.

Okay.

What else?

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

Okay.

And Commissioner Quok.

I met with representatives from Via Monte as well as the signature development groups and I met with uh representative from Signature over Coffee indeed.

Um just once and um they emailed signature emailed 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, 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 better time of your better use of your time than than sitting and waiting and getting anxious.

Um staff reports.

Okay, good evening, Chair and uh members of the commission.

We are here tonight to consider the Mitchell Town Homes project that will be located within the Shadows Business Park.

The application numbers 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 for fair warning, this is a multifaceted project with many parts.

So I appreciate your patience in advance if this project presentation does run a little longer than usual.

So I'll try my best to keep pace.

So Planning Commission tonight is looking to certify the environmental impact report and adoption of the mitigated monitoring and reporting program, as well as the project entitlements which consist of a major subdivision, design review, tree removal, and tree dripline encroachment permit, as well as a density bonus waiver requests.

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

It does consist of a two-acre, 22-acre parcel that has 11 office buildings known as the Walnut Creek Executive Park, and the surrounding area, as you can see here, consists of commercial and office uses, and there are residential uses across the site area on Shaylands, that's known as the Via Monte Senior Housing.

And on Oak on Mitchell Drive, we have the Oakmont Senior Housing.

That was recently approved, so we have hasn't been built, but we have approved a housing project here.

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

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

It is outlined in that yellow.

And all of these buildings within that yellow outline will be demolished for project construction.

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

And here are just some site photographs really showing what those office buildings looks, the existing office buildings look like and existing access into the site from both Mitchell and Shadelands.

And in the middle, I've 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.

That's gonna be hard.

Can I get some technical assistance, please?

Yeah.

The click the clicker's not working.

But I'll keep going while he figures that out.

So no.

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 um background.

Um in October, um 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.

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

And on April 9th of 2024, uh, 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, uh, the design review commission reviewed this project and provided um 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.

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

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

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

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

And the city would need to make those findings for denial, and those findings must be based on objective standards.

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

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

And the builder's remedy provision under the HAA does allow a developer to propose a housing project that is more dense or is not consistent with a city's zoning or general plan land use.

Therefore, no legislative amendments would be required for a project being processed under builder's remedy.

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

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

And given that this project has a planned development that refers to business park zoning standards.

And it would fall within the range of the medium density multifamily development under the general plan designation.

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

So that was considered to be the best fit.

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

The applicant is requesting waivers and a total of 10 waivers and under density bonus.

The project is providing 55 low-income units.

It is a three-story townhouse with a mix of building types that consist of range from two plex all the way through seven Plex designs, have two-car garages and outdoor decks.

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

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.

The roundabout location is at the intersection of Via Monte and Shade Lands, and the bike lane extensions are along shadowlands 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 Shea Lynn'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.

Um, so it's not triggering it, but just to enhance the area.

Uh 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.

Um, 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 uh 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.

Uh, the notice of preparation was issued, and then the public scoping meeting was held in December 11th of 2024, and um from that time as you see to today's date, it's been over a year.

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

Um, however, given the um the interest from the community, we did extend that to November 20th, uh, 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 uh 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 um mitigation monitoring and reporting is included as a condition of approval, and it does require compliance with that.

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

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

Uh 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 uh could also go over any of the conclusions that came out of this.

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

So there are no residential uh standards.

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

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

Uh this is just uh again another look at the um 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, uh proposing 19 dwelling units per acre.

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

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

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

And um, here is the uh 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.

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.

And here is the proposed site plan 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 based on neighborhood type, which I'll show you in the next slide.

There is no through access for vehicles across the site.

And the project will be completed in two phases.

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 Shade Linds for easy pedestrian accessibility.

And the townhomes consist of four four floor plans each, with which is a total of eight floor plans.

And neighborhood one has six building types.

Neighborhood two has four larger building types.

Excuse me, I'm getting the same.

Thank you.

It's a lot to speak.

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

Two car garages are included in each unit.

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

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

As you can see, these are the four proposed for neighborhood one, and then the four below proposed for neighborhood two.

And we also have them up behind the design review secretary, neighborhood one and neighborhood two.

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

Thank you.

But the top left 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 going to 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 recess 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 sighting and stucco, and then of 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.

Um again, I'm just highlighting the key change, 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 um 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 in stucco, also includes horizontal horizontal fiber cement lap siding 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 uh craftsman style character uh compared to the more modern and a little more toned down um 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 uh 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 fronted frontages or the perimeter of the site, and then um 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 um 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 arborist did approve 73 of these uh due to the size, species, and health, and the uh remaining 376 does require planning commission's approval, and um as noted earlier, none of these are highly protected species in the city's uh tree ordinance.

And uh again, just showing where those uh existing trees that are being preserved are located, and uh there are 31 off-site trees.

Um I've bubbled this area because there are highly protected trees in on the neighboring property, and these are all being preserved and protected in place, and there are conditions of approval for that, as well as if there's any undersized tree that's less than nine inches in diameter, and I believe there's several off-site uh trees that are less than nine inches in diameter over here.

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

And um, with that, the planning uh 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 uh resolution which approves the project entitlements is included as attachment two of your packet, and the entitlements are listed on the slide.

Um, and for the record, city did receive a number of um additional comments uh both in support and in opposition, and these were included in the agenda packet as attachment seven.

Um, and with that I do conclude my presentation, but um I'm happy to answer any questions that we also have several members of the city team uh the planning um 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, uh 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 I have a couple.

Yeah.

Um the uh the uh waivers um ten of them, I think you said um and for most of those the justification and the constraint on the planning commission um 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 of units that they're entitled to to propose and build.

Um and uh if there's a waiver requested or proposed that um without which that density would have to be reduced, uh 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 clear, license and city attorney uh the 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 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 a waived, um, and then there's the findings that Simmer mentioned about denying waivers and and concessions.

Okay, thank you.

Um let's see.

There was um in some of the the letters there were uh comments about the uh school assignments for this this project.

The the children who are in this project would go to one school district which is is um heavily impacted already and 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 then and I 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.

Yeah.

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

So I don't think that 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 Claub.

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

I have a CEQA question or a um 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, et cetera.

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

Yeah.

Are they all construction related to the other?

I believe it's all construction.

And so those are in the program includes who's responsible when 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 is 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.

Commissioner Pound.

Thank you.

Um 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.

Correct.

Commission isn't determining it, it is a builder's remedy project.

Um, and I can have um the city attorney uh weigh in if needed.

Yeah, I can um clarify that question.

And so the the asn' 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 statue 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 builders remedy projects review that the housing element is substantially compliant when at the time of a preliminary application submittal under SP 330, um, that either HCD or a court has certified it.

Um as um the staff of also provides that when the project submitted the Aspiry 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.

Yeah, thank you so much.

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 uh 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 the project is.

Am I on the right track?

Yeah, uh we can call the um consultant or WTRAs, they're available tonight to answer any questions related to traffic.

Okay.

Uh did she chair needing?

Oh, did we want to 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 is 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.

There's actually two transportation reports that are included in your packet.

One is part of the EIR, the CEQA documentation itself.

One is part of the EIR, the CEQA documentation itself, and then there's separate non-sequa 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?

Well, 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, um, during a morning commute period, during an afternoon compute commute period, and what is the effect of that?

Um that's what the 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-sequa traffic operational report, we did look at several nearby intersections.

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

And again, just uh I know there's a comments about well, you know, you don'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 uh 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?

The 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.

And 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, or 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.

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, and if if it's appropriate.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Yeah, Vice Chair Meeting.

Um I think it would be important, Claire, to because there's been a there's always constantly changes in 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 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 the that description is correct.

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

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

Um, and the city um, as you mentioned, um vice chair that the city achieved that um, you know, while there are other jurisdictions that still you know remained are still you're 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 builder's 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 that new law, which did then subsequently restrain them from putting a giant Miami tower.

Is that correct?

That 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 was considered substantially compliant, um, also amended um the builders statute to provide that previously um a project could qualify for builders' 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 the project is providing.

Um and the at the same time the law does provide for um certain 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.

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

Um for Walnut Creek that's 30 units per acre.

same time the law does provide for um certain 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 um and it also provides for maximum densities which is based on um one the city's housing element minimum density that is determined appropriate for lower income um and for walnut creek that's 30 units per acre um 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 um which water creek is within one um and in that situation the law provides for a 50 percent um density on top of the 30 um 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 in comparison to the market rate um the builders army taste does require that you have um kind of equal um comparable distribution um so essentially the market rate and the affordability units are kind of dispersed evenly um and they're kind of looking the same um and so you know the applicant can speak to this but I believe that's that's the case here.

Thank you.

Yeah the questions for staff okay very good in that case I will uh open the 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 uh a number of the um components of the shade's multimodal plan as simmer discussed one being um the 10 foot wide sidewalks on Mitchell and shadeens 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 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 111 uh guest parking spaces scattered through um 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 creeks 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 nearly 16 percent 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 uh but again we do have uh cut through for pedestrians and again summer talked about this two different neighborhoods two different product types um uh just to have a uh uh uh uh a wider spectrum of availability of 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 um in each phase again to have a a greater offering um 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 uh just to take a step back about um how we uh looked at programming this um kind of to the point about not putting in Miami towers uh we took a look at what was around us and want to do something that was contextual uh so kind of starting at the top of the of the um page there or the at the graphic uh the 2800 uh Mitchell uh C CRC 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 uh between us and Oak Grove is is three stories about 30 35 feet the Via Mate senior community to our south is four stories and 40 feet and then the Shadow and Sports Mall uh the post acute facility is 30 and 24 feet respectively to give a sense our townhomes to the top of the living space the third floor of the of each townhome is a little under 30 feet and then we have roof articulation that takes us up to about 38 to 40.

The Via Monte Senior Community to our south is four stories and 40 feet.

And then the Shade Land Sports Mall, the post-ecute facility is 30 and 24 feet respectively.

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.

And then we have roof articulation that takes us up to about 38 to 40.

So we feel that we're you know kind of hitting the kind of the bullseye here between what's around us, and that was important.

And then from a density standpoint, the shape of the via Monte is about 50 units to the acre.

So we're significantly below those from a density standpoint.

So we just feel like this is kind of positioned very well from uh uh from uh 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 a frontage uh residential frontage along both Shay Lens 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 um 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 like 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 uh with community groups, uh interested parties, stakeholders, uh the DRC.

Um, 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 um 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.

Um, 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 uh 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 uh 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 uh I believe it's 32 more trees in the site.

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

Another thing 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, Simmer mentioned this, is they wanted us to widen the central sidewalk uh 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 can 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, um, and then now we've changed it.

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

Talked a lot about safety improvements.

We know about that.

Um 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 lens, 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 are 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 Lens a little a little easier.

Um, and then also we talked about the roundabout.

Um so that's part of the Shadens Multimotal Plan that uh the city really wants to see implemented uh and we felt we could be a part of