Good afternoon.

I'm Kevin Wilk, mayor of the City of Walnut Creek, and welcome to the Tuesday, July 21st, 2026 special meeting of the Walnut Creek City Council.

This special meeting is called for the purpose of holding a study session related to the following 2050 general plan update City Council kickoff.

Under California law, public comments at special meetings are limited to subjects on the agenda only.

Therefore, public comments will be received during the item identified.

And I'd like to invite a principal planner, Crystal DeCastro to provide the presentation.

Good evening, Mayor Well, and that's why members of the council.

I'm Crystal Z Castro, Principal Planner and Project Manager for the General Plan Update.

Tonight marks the beginning of an important effort to update Walnut Creek's General Plan, our community's long-range blueprint that will help guide the city's future through 2050.

Our current general plan was adopted in 2006, so that was about 20 years ago.

So since then, Walnut Creek has evolved, state regulations have changed, and now there's new opportunities and challenges that have emerged.

This update is an opportunity to take a thoughtful look at where we are today and work together to develop a shared vision for the future.

So we're excited to be here tonight to have this conversation with council and the community.

So let's take a look at tonight's agenda.

First, we'll provide an overview of the general plan update and process and how we're approaching the work.

Second, we'll talk about engagement strategies and what we've heard so far to date, and um what we're hearing from the community and the stakeholders.

And finally, we'll have a discussion on key issues and outcomes for the general plan process, which will help shape the direction of the update.

Since this is a study session, we're not asking counsel for any type of decision or uh formal action tonight, and nothing like that is being requested.

So with that, I'll turn it over to Eric Yerkovic with Alta Planning and Design, the city's general plan consultant, who's gonna go through the update and lead us through the discussion.

So, Eric.

Uh good evening, council members.

Um my name is Eric Yerkovich.

I'm a principal at ALTA Planning and Design.

Super happy to be back with you this evening.

Um, as Crystal said, this is a really exciting opportunity for us to have an opportunity to begin a conversation with council about the general plan update to really root it in our shared values for the future.

Um California requires that every community in the state maintain and periodically update their general plans.

These are really roadmaps for the future.

Everything from our homes and our neighborhoods to our roads to the services we provide to parks and open space, they're all part of the sort of thoughtful planning processes going forward.

Once adopted, the general plan becomes a document to really help guide decision making by the city council, by commissions, by staff on issues around land use, transportation and mobility, housing, and other uh issues of community concern.

The plan itself sets forth a 20-year vision for the future, building on the assets and great things about the community, but also addressing the challenges and vulnerabilities that every community faces in the future.

But what I like to say about a general plan is not it's not just about planning for the future, it's about making sure that we understand the pressing concerns and issues today, and that we tie together those future vision goals, strategies that we implement in the general plan with the concerns of community members today, so that everybody can have a chance to participate in thinking about the future.

Now, California law requires that every community address those mandatory elements on the left side of your screen there.

Um the city recently adopted two of those elements and updates, uh both the safety element and the housing element, and we're not going to be updating those through this process.

Um we are also going to be talking about those other issues of community concern.

So we're going to be talking about arts and culture, healthy communities, economic development, and more.

So while general plan law is very rigorous in some ways, it's very open that we get to talk about issues that are of community importance.

Now, I think at the heart of every general plan update is an update to the land use and mobility plan for the community.

The land use really is the organizational feature for a community where we think about how spaces come together.

So, where do we put homes and neighborhoods?

Where are community amenities and businesses going?

How do we mix them together?

Those land use decisions affect a lot of everyday choices that individual members of the community make.

So how we travel, our health and sustainability, the places where we gather, socialize, and recreate within a community.

So it's important when we talk about the general plan to make sure that we share out what how it actually impacts individuals' daily lives in the work that we do.

Our job through this general plan process isn't to start from scratch.

There's a ton of work that's already been done here in Walnut Creek that we're really here to build upon.

So it's our team's job to honor the work that you've done as commission as council commissions and community members, lift that up, learn from the lessons learned in those processes, refine the goals, the policies and the implementation activities within the general plan to reflect those.

So our goal is really to build on all that great work that you've done through all of your planning and implementation initiatives here within the city.

Now, because general plan updates last three to five years, sometimes eight if you're unlucky.

We try and really break the process down into these sort of digestible chunks where we're doing certain technical analysis and then community engagement at the same time.

So for this update, we broke it in into these kind of five phases, and we're really in the first phase where we're assessing baseline conditions in the community, reviewing existing policy to really understand what's on the ground here today.

We've also started engagement processes where we're asking people about their vision for the future.

What principles should guide our work and what are some of the key issues and opportunities that we want to solve for as part of this general plan update?

And that's what we're going to be here to talk to you about this afternoon.

We take all that foundational material and then that lays the, and we kind of package it up, it lays the foundation for the important work we do and looking at land use and mobility in the city.

So how does the city evolve to meet its growing housing and jobs needs in the future?

What do those look like?

How do we do that?

How do we get people safely to their destinations?

We take that information and we pull it together and into revised policies, implementation activities, and goals for the city.

That all comes together into your general plan, which will get will go through an environmental review process, all released to the public.

And that feedback that we get on that general plan will then come back to you all ultimately for consideration for adoption.

Now, through each of those phases of work, we'll be doing different kinds of engagement with different members of the community.

Because one of the key elements of our work really is the engagement strategy itself.

We have a partner organization plan to place who you'll see throughout our community engagement activities when we start to go to the public, who we helping lead those initiatives so we can really meaningfully engage members of the community in a conversation around the future.

Now, our engagement process really focuses on creating meaningful activities for folks across a wide spectrum of neighborhoods and sub-populations within the city.

And to do that, we have a series of both outreach activities and then engagement activities that we'll go through during this process.

Those outreach strategies are really about building an educational foundation, motivating engagement, sharing out information to members of the community.

We've already started a lot of this work.

We have developed an engagement and communication strategy where we've mapped out community partners, we've defined current common terminology that we're using through the process, and started to think about how we're going to track and monitor engagement over the lifetime of the project.

We've also developed project branding and a project website, which I'm going to talk about in a second.

And then we have a variety of different engagement activities.

And this is where we go out and we talk to community members, we listen to ideas, we share out ideas with them and get feedback on those.

These include your more traditional community workshops, pop-up meetings, online questionnaires.

We have one-on-one meetings with community partners and focus groups where we can get different perspectives and lived experiences engaged in our process.

And then we have a series of informational forums where we'll go out in kind of a less rigorous style and talk to folks about, we'll bring together kind of regional leaders, city staff, project team to kind of talk about issues about housing, economic development, parks and open space here within the community, really to build a level of education for the process.

Now, one of the things that is really important to this process is getting a good representation of voices within the community.

And one of the ways that we're going to be doing that is working with community partners.

Those community partners, and this is just a small slice of those community partners within the city.

They really help to represent some of those voices in some cases, and then they can be a conduit for us to engage their client clients and sub-populations in those groups.

So we've already started these community partner meetings.

I'm going to share a little bit of the feedback we received from some of those already.

But we're going to continue meeting with community partners throughout the entire engagement process.

And you can see those related to arts and culture and to schools, sustainability, mobility, kind of the whole gamut of general plan topics.

Now, one of our key outreach activities was launching our project website, which went public at the end of June.

It's a great resource for all things about the general plan.

So we're going to be posting meeting materials there, our technical reports, we have information about upcoming meetings, and then we're going to have online questionnaires and mapping exercises for community members at different times during the process.

That's available at Walnut Creek2050.com.

And then finally, we wanted to share we will be coming to council and in different commissions within the city throughout the process.

And what we've tried to do is stagger those at particular times during the process.

Sometimes, like tonight with you all, those are more study sessions where we're just here to brainstorm ideas and get your ideas so that we can then take that and help shape the next step.

At other stages, we're going to be coming to you all for direction and decision making.

So we've kind of tied all of these meetings to particular times and segments in the process.

Now, as I mentioned, we began our community partner meetings in June and July, and we met with 40 different representatives from community-based organizations, regional agencies, local nonprofits, business organizations, and more here in Walnut Creek.

Our goal was really to one, learn a little bit more about what the work they're doing, the clients' populations that they serve, but also to hear from them about what their priorities are for the general plan and how we can better engage them through the lifetime of the general plan process.

We heard we're summarizing a few of those common themes we heard in those meetings about honoring Walnut Creek's identity, really bring about the qualities of place, the downtown, the schools, the parks and open space, all those things that make Wanna Creek unique and special.

We heard a lot about balancing both meeting the needs for housing, but also meeting the needs for businesses within the community here and really investing in those businesses.

We heard a lot about making and improving mobility here within the city and then sub-region to make biking, uh, pedestrian activity and access to transit safer and more convenient for folks to help meet your climate goals.

And we heard a lot about investment in arts, cultural organizations in the city, and really creating a lot of safe and wonderful places for social gathering that can showcase your open space, your parks, and your arts together as a group.

And then finally, we heard a lot about fostering healthy and resilient communities.

So everything from making sure the city's climate ready to wildfire resilience to making sure to address housing affordability and homelessness.

Likewise, we had a study session, our first joint study session with five different commissions.

So planning, design review, arts, transportation, and parks, recreation, and open space last month as well.

We heard a lot of very similar themes in that conversation as we heard in those community partners conversations.

But one thing I do want to just emphasize in this list since it's very similar, is that when we talked about transportation, there's a lot of talk about adaptability and what is transportation in the future look like and how is that gonna affect Walnut Creek and how are we gonna address that in the general plan update.

So we heard a lot of similar themes in those meetings, but a little bit more detail from some of the commissioners in that respect.

And then we also heard a lot about engagement from those commissioners.

We should do it often, we should do a lot of it, we should reach out to sub-populations like the schools and the youth to make sure their voices are also included in the process.

So, next steps over the next several months, we have a number of both uh community engagement activities that are gonna be ongoing as well as technical work that we're doing for the engagement side.

For the engagement side, we'll continue those part uh community partner meetings.

But we're actually going to start more of our community-wide focus in engagement.

So starting in August, we will be doing a series of kind of pop-ups around town at community events, really to get the word out about the general plan, tell people it's happening, drive people to the website, get them signed up for the online for online and email communications, and then also to let them know about the upcoming community workshop that's going to be happening.

So in September, we're gonna have our first community workshop that's gonna focus on developing the vision and guiding principles for the general plan itself.

And then we're gonna ask people about what they think are pressing issues and then how to bridge the gap between the vision that they have and the issue that they see.

So, what are the big big ideas they have to do that?

So we'll do that both in this community workshop as well as an online survey or questionnaire for folks who are unable to participate in that online event.

And then finally, uh, as I mentioned, we're doing a lot of technical analysis.

We're gonna be publishing a series of I think eight different, seven different studies that will go once we're done reviewing them with city staff, they'll get posted to the project website so people for yourself for commissioners and then community members can review those existing conditions reports.

Um this evening, this is as Chris Crystal mentioned.

This is really just an opportunity for us to have an initial discussion about the general plan and get some of your ideas about vision and issues and big strategies and successes for the general plan itself.

Um this would not be the first time you have an opportunity or the last or the last time you have an opportunity to talk about the general plan.

But today we want to hear what what's one word that you think about for the vision of Walnut Creek today and one word in 2050.

What are the most pressing issues you see today and in the future?

And then what's the what how do we bridge that gap between that issue and the vision that we have for the future?

What's the strategy that we do and what what makes a successful general plan in your opinion?

Is it outcome-based?

Is it process based?

So think about what makes it what how would we measure the success of the plan when we're complete in the future?

So just want to thank you all for um letting us take your time this afternoon.

Appreciate any thoughts that you have today.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Why don't we first start out with any questions that we may have directly here, and then we can have more of a collaborative discussion between us as well.

So uh Cindy, why don't we start with you on the left?

Thank you very much for the presentation and you're creeping away from the microphone.

Come back.

Yeah, we'll we'll probably have questions.

If we have questions, you're gonna be the one to answer them.

So well, or staff.

Or staff.

So thank you very much for the presentation and for your work to date.

Is this an update?

It's not a general plan amendment that I've heard presentations on.

Oh, you you can do updates and just do minor tweaks, or you need to do updates that are major wholesale renovations, remodels.

What do you think we're we need to do here and what are your what does this plan really reflect in terms of the level of four years' worth of work?

It takes a long time to do a general plan, especially when you want to do good deep community engagement.

That takes a lot of time and effort to do.

Um, this is a general plan update.

So we're gonna look at every aspect of the general plan and update all aspects of it.

Since the city's general plan was last stopped in 2006, uh, a lot has changed in state law.

A lot of the city has changed during that time.

So we want to reflect new values, the direction and ideals that you want to achieve, plus all that state law.

Now, you can do general plan amendments, state allows you to do, I think, four of them every year, but those are generally minor updates or single element updates.

This is a real comprehensive update looking at all the elements.

Okay.

I'll do one question at a time.

All right.

Hi again, thanks for bringing this here.

It's always fun to think about.

And I have to drink, I had my diet cooked before I came in so I can think in those kind of terms.

Um, one of the groups do we have a an outreach strategy around the youth commissioners and the youth in general?

Um because they they communicate so differently than we do.

They do.

Uh they really do.

I have a middle schooler and a high school, and I can confirm that they communicate very differently than us.

Um, yes, uh, it's part of our broader community engagement strategy.

So overall we are when we we talked to um the commission, the joint commission meeting about like who are the kind of the key populations, and we heard a lot about the youth being a voice that we want to make sure is included in the process.

What we often do for youth is we work through community partners, right?

They don't necessarily want to hear the nearly 50-year-old planning consultant staying there talking to them about general plans, but we often will go to their events, we'll work through PTAs to share out information and engage them in the process.

Um so that'll be part of the broader engagement strategy to make sure that we are at events where there will be youth, right?

And making sure that there'll be we connect with them when we're there and gather feedback from them specifically.

Um and then we're obviously working with a lot of the commissions themselves and their youth representatives I know on some of those commissions overall.

So they were they were part of that joint mission, uh, the joint meeting uh last month.

I think will be continue to be part of the part of the process as we move forward.

Yeah, I was thinking that the the youth commission itself might be a good one to bring in on those, but that's just absolutely um and then as far as um council member Silva asked you we've been looking at this general plan big, general plan small.

How much what do we how do we right size the amount of effort?

And I was wondering if in your you're looking at the data that we have, what are the areas that you think are the high value targets, and what are the areas I I know um the emergency response and the housing are kind of like okay, we got that.

But but where do you think the higher priorities?

I think uh one of the things I like about general plans is you get an opportunity to think cross topic about things.

So you did a housing element update at the same time.

You sh the general plan process allows you to think about new housing, new jobs, and how do we get to and from those through the mobility network, what community amenities are necessary.

So it gives us an opportunity to think a little bit more broadly about tying all of those topics together specifically, which I think is the advantage of a general plan as opposed to an a single element update, which we do from time to time or two elements at a time.

So I think that's uh an important part of it.

Um key issues.

I mean, we've heard about traffic, we've heard about open space, we've heard about housing, business retention, we've heard a lot a lot about those issues generally through our community engagement so far.

Um I you know, one of the things I think all communities are struggling with now is meeting housing needs, not just the last eight years.

Now you're gonna have to in by 2050, you're gonna have to do it two and a half more times, right?

So the general plan should help set you up so that you can meet not just the next housing element cycle, but you know, two and a half cycles into the future, right?

So we want to try and right size some of the development standards, locations to allow that to happen in the future to set your staff up for success in the future.

So it's it sounds like it's really the sinew between the things and then making sure for those things that are going to be challenging that we give ourselves enough capacity so that we're ready for them.

Exactly.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Mayor for Tim.

Thank you very much for the presentation.

Uh exciting effort underway here.

You you've touched on it, I think, in response to Councilmember Darling's questions about kind of setting us up for success in the future and trying to make it so that we're not just putting a plan that's into a time capsule in 25 years, they take it out and go, wow, look at how dated that was.

But but what are you know, what are some of the thoughts and strategies?

And I think some of the commissions mentioned it too in terms of mobility, but in terms of land use too, because we're we have this evolving um regulatory landscape with the state kind of, you know, it used to be okay, housing goes here, jobs go here, and schools go there.

And that's been changed, and I think will continue to be changed.

And so how how do we in a not an easy question, but kind of what are some of the thoughts and strategies about making this a relevant, adaptable, flexible document that's not just current today but still looks fresh in 20 years.

Um you ask a really important question, I think.

And if you if you just go back in time, say 10 or 15 years when we were uh when we were doing our planning work, we were looking around and we were saying, well, okay, where are opportunities to add housing in these commercial districts, right?

In office districts, and we started creating these mixed use districts all over the bay, like around transit, like you did here in Walnut Creek, in neighborhoods, like um employment neighborhoods around the bay.

And that's been really important to make all these areas mixed use to allow housing to come into them, to allow commercial spaces to exist.

But we've also had this effect where now housing can go everywhere in the community.

So I think it's important as we plan for the future, not just to think about how we meet our housing needs flexibly and adaptive adaptively, but also how we maintain strong business focus within the community, because I think what's happening within state laws is this pressure to meet our housing need over time, which is really important to meet our housing crisis, and what we're doing is giving up a lot of employment lands in this at the same time, right?

And that's really important for cities as you've lost funding through Prop 13 and other resources that the tax revenue, the business license revenue, are really important to communities to maintain the services that you provide.

So I think we need to balance the two, and we need to figure out what the right balance is for Walnut Creek so we can kind of help you thread that needle as best as possible.

A lot of people say flexibility, like you can do anything, but I'm not sure you always want to do that in every case, right?

You want to maintain some economic cluster here so that you can maintain success as a community going forward.

That that's helpful.

And then uh you know, we t we talked a little bit about community engagement as well, and we don't have a ton of public here now, but I think that your the approach is to gather feedback and in multiple different ways and formats, is that right?

That's correct.

Yeah, we have a series of different kinds of engagement activities from online questionnaires, so if people don't want to go to public meetings or can't meet at those times, to kind of more traditional workshops for folks to come to these kind of one-on-one meetings with community partners so we can hear and get our different representation of voices in the process.

Great, thank you.

I'm uh looking forward to the process.

I don't have specific questions at this time.

Those are been good questions that were just asked, so I enjoyed hearing the answer to those.

Yeah, uh I mean overall, I like the approach.

I think that the outreach is going to be critical.

I I see that uh all the different events that we have, whether it's the locustry festival or um, I think even uncorked, perhaps, maybe not uncorked.

But anyway, we always have a booth there, we have staff that's there answering some of these questions, hopefully visible where where people uh the public is able to engage in that.

So all of that kind of outreach is going to be really important.

You mentioned the discussion topics, uh there were really the four here.

And how would you like to go about discussing them?

You asked about everything from one there we go, one word of what would describe Walnut Creek and what are some of the most pressing issues.

Uh I'm sure the business community is gonna have a lot of questions that come about this.

They we hear we each hear them over the course of our entire uh tenure here, everything from why can't we have a title company or a real estate company of some sort on Main Street or or locust to uh cannabis shops?

And that's something that we've talked about here for the last several years, and we really pointed to the general plan as being the place that this could be discussed.

Uh and I really I guess we leave it to you and staff to determine how and when that is discussed, whether or not we end well, I mean the question being whether we entertain that and how we move along that discussion.

Um it it seems like we should really just start going down these discussion questions one by one and and discuss among ourselves and uh hopefully will be enough information to be able to pass to you by the end of this.

Um could I make one friendly amendment?

I recommend doing question one and then doing two and three at the same time because they are sort of combined and then doing the third.

I love combining bullet points, makes it easier.

Can I have clarification on something?

Sure.

Um, the mayor, of course, we could go down deep diving into the 42 different issues that we are we supposed to stay higher level at this point and let it percolate from the bottom up to us again.

I mean, or are we supposed to go, oh, let's do cannabis, let's do a summer concert series, let's get a band shell.

I mean what sh what do you want?

I think um if you want to give us the higher level feedback is important, but if there's like an example or two you want to give us with something so you can illustrate what you mean by that higher level topic, I think that would be helpful.

Great.

All right.

So the first one is uh what's one word that should describe Walnut Creek today and one word that should describe Walnut Creek in 2050?

Oh, council member Darling, yes, I'll call on you.

You look very excited.

I'm I'm very excited because I thought about this when I did my homework.

And I I think one of the ways I would describe Walnut Creek is resilient.

You look at how we've come through the last you know 10, 15 years.

We've done a really good job with the economic viability of Walnut Creek.

Um I talked to other cities around us, they're you know, and tr their sales tax are declining, they're they're struggling, and and we have been really resilient through COVID, through this, through that.

So that would be my word for today, but then that resilience is coming from the connections within our community, and that's where I want to see us go in 2050 is improve those connections.

Um and those connections are everything from the connection between nature and health, the connection between the different cultures where we are becoming much more multicultural here in Walnut Creek, and we need to make sure that we maintain those connections.

Um new and old residents.

We have a lot of um folks that have been here like all of us 25 years, and now we are picking up younger families coming into downtown.

We're picking up more less traditional type of housing arrangements.

Every neighborhood has got a few ADUs in it now, and those are everywhere from one friend of mine or disabled brother lives in it, the people across the street.

It's a rental, but how do we connect those things together?

So to me, that's the biggest one.

And and in that the mobility connection is probably one of the most important.

And that gets to the transportation system as a whole.

And how do we need to be able to do that?

You're getting a number two.

I know.

I'm sorry.

No, I'm still on next year, or this year and fifth 2050.

So connection resilient and connected are my two words.

Okay, all right.

Uh Councilmember Davin.

Sure.

And just for clarification, though, I thought we were supposed to do one, two, and three together.

No, we were doing two and three together.

Two and three together.

Councilmember Darling decided to combine one and two together.

Oh, I see.

Okay.

No, I'm doing just one.

All right, well.

That's today and the future.

I was right.

Okay.

So I mean, one word is obviously challenging, but I guess when I think about one word to describe Walnut Creek, I would say family.

Um, just like family oriented, you know, we've got um a diversity of activities that you know, from parks and services and open space, and um, you know, we've got you know, beautiful neighborhoods and yet an attractive downtown and places to go and do things that you know, good school districts.

It makes me think that you know, this is an and I and it's why we moved here a place where where families want to move and where families want to stay, because it also leads to this um spectrum of ages that we have because people that live here tend to stay here too.

So we wind up with folks who've been in the community for 30 and 40 years.

So that would be my word.

Um and I'm not trying to be corny here, but I think I would keep the same word for what I hope it will continue to be uh in 2050.

Um, which is still a place where people can move to that they want to move to, that they want to raise their family in, that um to talk about the sinew between um different um cultures and people that they everyone feels welcome here, that it's a a place where people want to move to and raise their family and then stay, and then their kids want to move here.

Um those be my words.

All right, great.

Yeah, yeah, I it is hard to to encapsulate it in one word.

Um I think the the one word that comes to my mind is community, and I think that that you know it's reflective of all of us in this room, but it's reflective of the connections we have with people on a daily basis, and then kind of all the nonprofits and all our staff, but all the people in that make up the community from you know the library to art to athletics, and um that sense you get it's it's sort of the the sense I always got at City Meet where even if the kids didn't go to the same school, there were connections uh and the parents had connections and the kids had connections and they were all together at one city event at one city facility, just having a really good time and uh and connecting with one another.

And so that that's the same word I would use to describe what I would like to see Walnut Creek look like in 2050.

I think it's a real strength of Walnut Creek that uh we should hold on to and preserve.

Alex should go next and uh can I add just onto my family a word that we can have family businesses too, that we can still promote in a um a city where or we can maintain a city where people can open businesses and small businesses can thrive.

Um I kind of build on what uh what we just heard from Matt and from Craig wouldn't I would say livability or quality of life, which it's not unique, it's certainly something that we've heard about for well as long as I've been on the city council, but everything we do is based upon the livability feature of living here.

Um it's the the feeling of safety, community, family, raising children, the sports that's here, shopping downtown, and I mean it would if I think back to when I first was growing up here and went to high school here.

If we wanted to have anything more than pretty much a hamburger, we had to go to Berkeley.

And now we've got how many different types of cuisine that are just in uh in downtown and an art center.

So it's the quality of life here that I think really with that livability describes today, and also should describe it in 2050, because everything that we decide upon and future councils decide upon, whether it's housing or transportation, anything else, we have to keep that livability in mind, and that uh people want to whether they're living, working, visiting, recreating, or or shopping, that it's that quality of life.

Uh councilmember Silva.

I'm gonna use my two words.

Um I'm gonna start with welcoming.

That's where I think we are today and what we've been, and over time, like the 40 years that I've lived here, one of the things I've noticed is that we're more welcoming.

We welcome more people and different people.

We have convinced the community to be welcoming to housing, because I hear more communities all over the state come basically describe harrowing council meetings where people are objecting to housing, which is basically meaning they're objecting to neighbors and new people.

So we're welcoming, we're welcoming to new ideas, new people, innovation.

And I think as we move forward, we need to be adaptable to because in order to remain welcoming to new ideas, welcoming to livability to families, etc.

We have to be adaptable because things change really fast and they come whipped smart.

And so adaptability is going to be important for us.

Great.

Thank you.

Um we're on track so far.

That's uh sounding good.

All right, got a thumbs up there.

So the next uh questions two and three combined, or what are the most pressing issues facing Walnut Creek today and in the future, and how can Walnut Creek address those issues?

So why don't we start uh start with Mayor Pro Tem this time?

Okay.

Uh this is not very original, but I think that I started thinking of certain things, and then my mind went a different direction.

I I think really the most pressing issues are reflected in the priorities that we've enact adopted, and I uh I don't know what they're gonna be in the future, but I imagine I mean I think the ones that we've we've articulated in terms of public safety, economic development, parks and recreation, maybe maybe broaden that to infrastructure, I would say, and um climate change will be ones that will still be relevant and pressing issues in 2050.

And so, you know, but I I think that that and I I would so how do we address those?

Well, staff's come up with great work plans and especially for ones that require more frequent updates, like our economic development plan.

It's it's like a two-year plan instead of a five-year plan.

But I think what I kind of envision is that those broad, you know, writ large public priorities that that kind of we've identified, find a home somewhere in this general plan so that they kind of that we embody the larger policies and goals we have as to each of these priorities, and then it'll be with enough flexibility that they can be implemented in various different ways, and we keep it at a policy level, but that we find a home for them in the general plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um yeah, I you know, when I was going through the priorities, I did kind of naturally default to some of the things that we have been identifying consistently as priorities over the years.

Um for example, sustainability and climate change.

We all recognize that for our city to continue to be a family community, livable, adaptable, it has to be able to function in the new world that we are in.

Public safety writ broadly has been a priority, I think the whole time I've been on council, and that will continue to be a priority.

Um and that's that's public safety, not just do we have an officer to respond to a call.

It's do we have a way to help somebody with a mental health crisis?

Do we have a way to help a young family that's struggling with their rent?

Do we have a way to deal with you know teens who are struggling in this world where everything is on your telephone?

And you don't ever call anybody on your telephone, at least they don't.

Um and then economic vitality and resiliency in the face of change.

I think that is one of those things we have said for a long time, economic viability is important, and there are real challenges coming down the road.

Self-driving cars, use of AI.

Uh we saw the huge switch to work from home during COVID, and that's going to be with us for a while.

That is part of our world now.

And so we need to think about well, what else?

I mean, we could all ask AI, what else is coming?

But we need to be we need to have that flexibility, and we will have to recognize that economic viability is going to be something we'll have to revisit very common very frequently.

Um connected, modernized infrastructure.

You know, we've done a great job recently on getting a bunch of different things done.

But there is still a lot of streets in the city without sidewalks.

A lot of places where if you were to ride your bike, you take your life in your hands.

A lot of um the stormwater um infrastructure, there's there's different things related to infrastructure that we're gonna need to continue to focus on.

Um climate change and that's it.

Simple, just go do it.

Well, there's a long list of issues that we face, and uh th they're reflected on our strategic priorities, they're reflected in what's being said to us and done to us on a regulatory level.

I think our biggest priority, if I had to press it, would be how do we I'm gonna use the word adapt, but how do we set a tone and a temperament in the way we work such that we're open to the ever-changing model of things going on.

And um and looking at things from a regional perspective as opposed to it would be very easy to become parochial and internalize when things get really tough.

But you when things get really tough, you actually have to go more open and broader because the region and the state has been going to be applying pressure on us as well as our neighbors.

And so I think any of these strategic priorities have a regional nature to them.

And um I think we're gonna have to.

And so how do we do this?

Is we have to keep talking to our neighbors.

We have to keep talking to our community, and think more taking the time to talk and ask questions and take input in is going to help.

Thank you.

Councilmember DeVinny.

Well, there have been an uh outlined here a number of issues that Walnut Creek is facing and that are important and pressing issues.

I guess what gives me the most angst when I fast forward like 20 years is thinking about, you know, we're gonna have more housing, we're gonna grow, we're gonna densify as is transportation, like how are we going to get around the city?

And I see areas of the city already, you know, feeling and have been for some time, but continue to feel the stress of transportation challenges.

So how can we address those issues?

It's interesting because the the region is looking at that issue right now, and they're you know, they're putting together uh their transportation something plan, what is it?

Expenditure plan, yes.

Um we have an option of looking at some of the information that they're collecting as well.

But I I see that as a big challenge for Walnut Creek, and I and I don't really know what the answer is, but it's you know, we talk about these sidewalks, we talk about bike paths, um how to make the streets usable, not just for drivers, but with autonomous vehicles vehicles coming the way they might need to access curbs in a different way than then how we've historically used that, how we're gonna address parking.

Um I'd say that generates maybe the traffic and those types of issues generate the most complaints amongst the city, and I see that as being one of our our biggest challenges moving forward.

Yeah, I would agree with that.

I was going to say transportation even before I heard Craig say it.

Public safety, uh everything we've heard here are are important for sure.

Um public safety continues to be, I'm not sure it's a pressing issue, it's just a constant issue.

And people come here, they live here, they come down here on the weekends and shop because it's safe.

And so we always make sure we want to have that baseline level of safety, and we certainly want to keep that for the next 20, 25 years and beyond.

But transportation, what's interesting here and being on county connection for the last 10 years and uh alternate to C C TA and TransVec, and of course, Craig, you're now part of that as well.

Uh these are these are issues that aren't going to go away, they're only going to get more complicated.

Uh we're seeing that the region, the county, the city are pushing forward in transportation areas that sometimes are moving faster than the public is comfortable with wanting them them to see moving forward, whether it's reducing lanes so that safe so that uh speeds are brought down, or we we I can't believe how often now I hear about the civic drive as you as you as you turn right on civic out of uh out of City Hall and you're going up to Ignacio, there's that divider now that's in the middle uh in the two lanes so that people go slower.

I can't believe how often I hear people bring this up to me now.

Sorry, Matt.

Uh, but they do, they bring it up.

And we understand why, because it is to slow traffic down, but whether it's sidewalks or or mobility and for um e-bikes and bikes and scooters and and everything, this is going to continue to be an issue.

And I remember what it was about six months ago we were just talking about uh the county that's putting on that's putting a bike lane down on treat between I think it was like between Cherry and Maine or something, and it's going to end up taking away a lane a little bit sooner.

And I mean some of us drive that every single day and we already see the backup.

So these are the things that I think there's gonna have to be sort of a pendulum or a lever that we move in certain directions, but also want not wanting to go too fast and wanting to see uh what the public's ready for and what we're trying to encourage to do along with the county.

So these are gonna be huge pressing issues continuing because just look coming down Ignacio every day, there's traffic, and we see this in a few of our hotspot areas.

Uh so I I mean there isn't an easy answer to this.

These are going to be conversations that are going to evolve from the general plan update, but also beyond as well.

And uh, yeah, and and we're going to have to help lead the way and help bring the the community with us and also make sure that we're paying attention to the fact that there are still cars.

And just to finish up quickly, BART is still at only about I want to say 60 to 70 percent of pre-COVID ridership right now.

There are more cars on the road because people feel more comfortable looking listening to podcasts and their health safety and their comfortability in their car.

So we haven't seen this migration to people that are doing more public transit.

Unfortunately, we're seeing just the opposite right now.

So these are conversations again that'll continue to have to evolve.

Don't you think some of that is a result of work from home behavior?

Absolutely.

I mean, because the there isn't the volume available to be on BART five days a week the way it was previously.

Totally.

I commuted into San Francisco five days a week for 10 years.

If I was able to work from home two or three days a week, I might have been willing to drive in a couple of days a week to San Francisco.

Absolutely.

But I mean, I don't think we should I don't really want to add it as a nuance of the environment that we're in.

Yeah, well, no, it's no.

Which affects our local economy, affects everything.

Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, I I think this conversation that both you and Craig have raised in terms of traffic underscores to me the need to stay focused on the relevance of transit and public transit.

Um having just returned from Los Angeles and seeing the consequences of trying to really address the issue now in time for the Olympics, I guess.

Um that you're really at a disadvantage, and then talking out with the city manager about you know at the other end of the spectrum, you know, New York City that has this fantastic subway system that you can get pretty much anywhere in all five boroughs very easily.

And I BART is not quite there, but I think it's facing challenges, and I think in order for people to go, you know, to feel comfortable going back, I think work from home is part of it, but I think it has to be a well-run, safe, clean system, and that there needs to be economic accountability on BART too, and that we need to be sensitive to that and be focused on not throwing transit aside.

I mean, they're clearly part of the solution for our entire region, and I think the consequences of not doing it are really drastic in terms of uh some of the freeways I was just on.

Completely and uh when we talk about reduced, I mean, we don't need to get into this yet, this is gonna be conversation for a few months from now.

But when we talk about reducing public transit due to the economic measures, those are people that are going to be on the street as well in their cars.

So whether or not we use public transit, whether or not people use public transit, they're gonna be impacted if there's going to be a reduction in public transit.

What is the saying?

Every person that you see on BART going by you when you're on the freeway as a person that would otherwise be in front of you on the road.

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

I just took Bart to Berkeley last week and thought exactly that.

Um the last question here is how would you measure success for the general plan update?

Who would like to go first?

I will.

Okay.

Level of participation in the process.

Because you're not going to be able to measure the outcome of 50 years of a forward thinking document.

All you can do is basically uh measure the process itself, and it will be level of participation.

And people who the number of people who say to us, I participated and thank you.

Next, I think about it, you know, I I I agree with you when we look at whether or not we have successfully created a general plan that works for people.

Um correct, the implementation, you know, how many people got involved, rolled up their their shirt sleeves and did it.

Are our people in Walnut Creek are spectacularly willing to do that?

But it's you know but then I think about the success of the general plan as a whole is have we articulated where we are going and then how we're gonna measure progress towards that as we go.

You don't just say, oh, I'm going to New York, and then you never look at a map between here and New York because 66 to Chicago.

Yeah, yeah.

But but does our does our plan inspire people to a sense of ownership?

Does it inspire confidence because we have in there not only we're going to New York, but we're going to look and see our wake up tomorrow morning, are we in Verde, Nevada, or are we in LA?

Yeah.

You know, so wrong turn in work.

Yeah in the Caribbean.

Yeah.

That's not a wrong term.

Anyway, uh I'd I'd measure success by participation apps absolutely, but also by ensuring that everybody has seen the outreach.

We know that most people that see the outreach are not going to participate, and we this happens all the time.

But as long as they have been touched from some kind of communication where they can say, okay, well, I had the opportunity, I just didn't provide my input.

I I think that that's a benchmark that we can say that out of the what 50,000 voters, 70,000 residents, that we hit a majority of all of them with at least the information that they could participate, I think will be um that'll be a measure of success.

Yeah, and I I agree definitely with uh the outreach.

Um I'd like to, you know, I would measure success as it being a living, breathing document that is relevant both to the average resident.

They understand what a general plan is and what it does, and to our commissioners.

I recall being on the planning commission and on the council too, and frequently, you know, is this project consistent with the general plan that they can use it as a kind of a North Star and a reference document when making land use decisions?

Thank you.

And Craig want to wrap it up.

Sure.

Well, I I was gonna say outcome.

And then Cindy made her comment, and I thought, well, no, that's a really good point.

Maybe I should say participation.

Then I started then I started thinking about it again.

Um, and I'm gonna go back to outcome and and the the problem with measuring it on on an outcome basis is we're we're not gonna know the outcome for maybe another 10 years when we see the effect of the general plan that we put together.

Um the the participation a hundred percent.

Um I also though you know, sort of a philosophical point, um, you know, passing say um come up later tonight, passing laws through the initiative process.

Sometimes, you know, are do voters spend more than a few minutes thinking about things.

And if we leave the process completely up to the input that we get without directing it and sort of guiding it, so then it becomes you know, is there is there best is there best process out there?

I'm or best practice.

I mean, are are there other communities that we'd like to be like that we'd like to emulate that we could take example from?

You know, maybe people know what they see right now, but maybe they don't know what's possible, and so um having some perhaps uh inspiring ideas to show them of what what what we could do.

So if if we if we simply collect data from many people based on a brief interaction, we might miss some of the in-depth analysis that comes from experts.

And so I hope that we're incorporating some expert opinion and um maybe guiding some of the discussions or or uh with the community.

Great, thank you.

Um before we take this uh the break at this point.

Let me ask if we have any people from the public that would like to make any comment, uh whether in person or online.

We now are back to online, and we'll talk about that at six o'clock as well.

Um so do we have any people for the public to come in?

No?

Okay.

We'll bring it back to council.

And can I ask if we could do a a last question that is a little different?

Which would be are there any pressing issues that we want the consultants and staff to know about that's in our heads that if we don't say it now, but we're not gonna be able to say it in front of us.

So I'll start with transit oriented communities.

This is the big issue with ABAG and MTC.

It's going to hit us in the housing element, but I think we have to keep that in mind.

Um housing near transit as we look at this because it's going to come to us in a way that they're gonna make uh transportation dollars contingent on abiding by their policies.

So perhaps it's just good idea to take a strong look at it and figure out how we're gonna convince them we're abiding by the policies.

Yeah.

Good.

I didn't prepare for this question.

So I have there's lots of things out there, but um, yeah, I think being knowing what regulatory mandates are coming down the pike and making sure that we're ready for those, whether it be TOD, stormwater, um, a whole host of other things, uh making sure we're ready for those.

And uh well, I mentioned a couple earlier, which were just making sure that the cannabis uh uh discussion for storefront actually begins or at least uh is engaging.

And uh and also taking a look at our core downtown area to see if there are other kinds of businesses that could make sense on ground floor.

We do have some vacancies, not saying that they're always going to be occupied from any other types of businesses.

However, just having that discussion, I think the business community would be interested in having that discussion.

So maybe that would be you could wrap the two of them together in terms of modernized our approach to downtown and retail.

Sure.

Although, yes, although um cannabis itself may be something that isn't downtown, but yes.

Uh not necessarily a kind of a variant of that question, and it it's a maybe for the consultants.

Uh I was curious about first of all on the website.

What is there an opportunity now or will there be at some point relatively soon for someone to sign up for updates?

I didn't see it immediately, but there's a lot of boxes and so there is an opportunity now to sign up for updates on the website.

I got it exactly.

And then what new elements will be in the general plan that we don't currently have?

So that's gonna be through our process.

We'll uh figure that out as we get more information from the public in the during the engagement.

We'll see what issues or topics they want as alternative elements or extra elements in the general plan.

What what are the mandatory ones that we have?

So oh this is like a quiz for me.

Sure.

Let me go back.

I don't know if we have that on the slide now.

One more.

Okay.

So those are the elements we have: land use, community design, transportation, open space and conservation, and noise.

And we already adopted the safety element this year, and the housing element was adopted in 2023.

So there are options for additional topics there that you see on the right related to economic development, arts and culture, healthy communities, and implementation.

And there's others, you know, it's very open.

Well uh sustainability, where does that fit?

Sustainability is um part of uh we have sustainability climate action plan, so that's a specific plan that we have.

Standalone.

Standalone.

It's not an element, it's um based on I don't know if it's conservation, comes from conservation.

So it's more of an action item from conservation.

Okay.

And then environmental justice.

Do we do so?

We are doing environmental justice.

Uh we are looking at healthy communities.

Um, maybe Eric can talk a little bit more about that, but there are two rec um regulations on environmental justice.

We don't fall into the first one, which is regarding certain communities or um we fall under healthy communities, meaning that say if you're next to the freeway, there's pollution impacts.

So we'll we'll um respond to that more.

But I see, and that's okay.

I didn't need more details.

I was just broader levels, wondering what the new elements are going to be.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

So one of the things that we have had as a priority for a while is diversity and equity.

Does that fit into healthy communities or is it just more of an approach overall to achieving the things on the general plan?

So it would be approach overall.

It's something that hits on every single element to make sure that everybody there is equitability for each of them when it comes to housing or land use or even economic development in open space.

Just access as equity.

Thank you.

Uh no.

All right.

I think we're good on our end.

Um it is uh 5.02, I have, so we're going to take a break to our open session, which is at 6 o'clock, and we'll see you all then.

I'm Kevin Wilk, mayor of the City of Walnut Creek, and welcome to the regular meeting of the Walnut Creek City Council.

The City Council is conducting this meeting from the City Council Chamber.

This meeting is being video streamed and can be viewed live or later on the city's website.

As some attendees may be participating in their first Walnut Creek City Council meeting, I wanted to welcome everyone and talk briefly about the public comment process.

For each agenda item, there will be an opportunity for public comment on the item.

Thus, if you desire to speak to an item on the agenda this evening, please hold your comments until the city council considers that item.

Additionally, we have a section on the agenda titled Public Communications, which is for public comments for items not on the agenda.

Any comments during public communication should not relate to an item that is on the agenda this evening.

Consistent with section 9.5 of the City Council handbook, 30 minutes will be initially allocated for public communications for items not on the agenda.

Additional time for public communications for items not on the agenda.

Will be provided at the end of the open session portion of the meeting if necessary.

If you desire to provide a public comment, please complete a speaker identification card and line up behind the lectern at the appropriate time.

Wait your turn, and then when you approach the lector and please state your name and city of residence for the record.

You will have two minutes to address the city council.

Please keep in mind that this is a city business meeting.

The City Council handbook outlines decorum expected in the council chamber and can be found on our website.

All remarks should be addressed to the City Council.

Please do not use threatening, profane, or abusive language, which disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the council meeting.

Again, each speaker will have two minutes to make your remarks.

Written comments submitted and received up to two hours before the meeting have been posted to the city's website for public review and are included in the meeting record, but will not be separately read into the record.

All right, good evening.

I'm Kevin Wilk, Mayor of the City of Walnut Creek, and welcome to the Tuesday, July 21st regular meeting of the Walnut Creek City Council.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 5454953.4 or SB 707.

We'll also have remote public comments via Zoom.

If you're participating in the meeting via Zoom and would like to make a public comment, please use the raise hand feature or press star nine if you're calling during the item in which you would like to comment on being heard.

Our first item is the Pledge of Allegiance.

And would you all please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance led by the Buena Vista Elementary School?

I pledge allegiance to the flaged States of America.

And secret republic for which it stands on nation under God, individual liberty and justice for all.

Councilmember Darling.

I'm here.

Councilmember Davin.

Here.

Councilmember Silva.

Here.

Mayor Protem Francois.

Here.

And Mayor Welk.

Here.

All right.

Our first item is a proclamation for Park and Recreation Month.

And I invite Chris Farrow in the Arts and Recreation Director, and anybody else you'd like to bring forward to for the proclamation.

And I'll read a little bit of this here that the parks and rec is an integral part of communication throughout this country, including Walnut Creek, California.

And whereas Park and Recreation promotes time spent in nature, which positively impacts mental health by increasing cognitive performance and well-being and by alleviating illnesses like depression, attention deficit disorder, and Alzheimer's.

And whereas park and recreation programming and education activities such as out-of-school time programming, youth sports, and environmental education are critical to childhood development.

Parks and recreation is fundamental to the environmental well-being of our community from improving air quality to reducing urban heat island effects.

And our park and natural recreation areas ensure the ecological beauty of our community and provide a place for children and adults to connect with nature and recreate outdoors.

And the U.S.

House of Representatives has designated July as Park and Recreation Month, and Walnut Creek recognizes the benefits derived from park and recreation sources, resources.

And therefore, I, Kevin Wilk, mayor of the City of Walnut Creek, on behalf of the Walnut Creek City Council, do hereby recognize July as Parks and Recreation Month.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor and City Council.

On behalf of Public Works and our Arts and Rec departments, we appreciate Council's recognition of July as Parks and Rec month.

This recognition is especially meaningful to me personally because parks and recreation shape my life from the very beginning.

Growing up in the Oakland Hills, the Montclair Park and Recreation Center served as my second home.

Countless hours were spent in camps and classes and on courts and fields.

Looking back, I realized those experiences built my confidence, fostered my independence and creativity, and introduced me to adult mentors mentors who told me to be the best version of myself.

The person I am today stands on the foundation that was built in parks and recreation programs.

And that's the power of parts and parks and recreation.

A park is never just a park.

A community center is never just a building.

These are the places where toddlers will take their very first swim lesson.

A child will discover new skills.

A teenager finds their passion, seniors pick a new hobby, and families create traditions.

These experiences inspire healthy lifestyles, foster lifelong connections, encourage environmental stewardship, and create a community where people of every age can learn, grow, and belong.

We must acknowledge that none of this happens without people.

And I have a few members of our teams here tonight, and they represent the hundreds of dedicated hourly and full-time employees we have together.

Camp counselors, lifeguards, recreation leaders, park rangers, maintenance crews, administrative staff, and so many others who show up every day because they believe in creating meaningful spaces and enriching opportunities for our community.

So on behalf of both of our teams, uh, Rich is on vacation, otherwise he'd be here.

Um, we want to thank you for recognizing the work for supporting parks and recreation and investing in places where memories are made, communities are built, and lives are changed.

We are proud to serve the city of Walnut Creek.

All right.

Well, why don't we take a picture up here?

Yep.

All right.

Next is a very exciting recognition of Odyssey the Mind by the Buena Vista Elementary School team.

And I invite the fifth grade team from Buena Vista Elementary School forward to accept this certificate of recognition.

This team has shown exceptional creativity and teamwork, having worked together since first grade.

This year they earned first place regionals and second place at the state championship.

That is really impressive.

They proudly represented California at the Odyssey of the Mine World Championships at Iowa State University in May, where they placed second in their division.

Their dedication, imagination, and longstanding collaboration are truly inspiring.

So why don't you all come up here and love to hear a little bit about what that was all parents that need to videotape?

You can come up here, sure.

That trophy looks as big as you are.

Hello, Mayor Wilkin Council members.

We are Teo, Kieran, L, Nathan Rocco, Jacob, and Owen.

We just finished fifth grade in Buena Vista Elementary.

In Buenovista Elementary School in Walnut Creek.

For the past five years, we have been competing in Odyssey of the Mind, a program where teams from around the world find creative ways to solve problems.

Our team has been together since first grade.

This past May, we came to the city council to share that we had qualified to the representative Northern California at the Odyssey of the Mind World Championship held at Iowa State University.

Many people donated to our cause to help us pay for our trip to the world championships.

Thank you so much to everyone who donated.

We competed against kids from the United States, South Korea, Poland, Hong Kong, China, and Mexico.

Thank you so much for your time and recognition.

We are proud to have gotten to represent Walnut Creek at the Odyssey of the Mind World Finals.

Thank you so much to everyone who donated and supported us this year.

If you would if you would indulge me one favor, could each of the boys come up and just tell us who you are, just briefly, what's your name, who you are, and uh maybe what school you're going to this next year.

Um my name is Nathan, and next year I'm gonna be going to WCI.

Okay.

My name is Teo, and next year I'm gonna be going to WCI.

My name is Owen, and I'm gonna go to WCI next year.

My name is my name is Rocco, and I'm gonna go to WSA next year.

My name is JK, and I'm also going to WCI next year.

My name's Kieran, and I'm also going to WCI.

Well, this this championship team is staying together.

All right.

Well, why don't we all take a picture together?

Huh?

Oh.

Oh, yeah, they have something for you guys.

Oh, yeah.

Yes.

Oh, thank you.

Thank you.

Oh.

Thank you so much.

Was it one problem or more than like multiple problems?

One problem, but then we can all stay in the world.

Can I hear it?

Well, congratulations.

Yeah.

Now we know you'd all love the state for the consent calendar and everything else.

Enjoy the rest of your summer.

Two more weeks, right?

Yes.

And our donations really took off after we came here.

Oh good.

Okay, that is definitely gonna be the highlight of our meeting.

So next we do have the consent calendar.

And does any member sorry?

In order here.

Uh does any council member wish to pull an item for discussion?

Or any member of the staff wish to pull an item for discussion.

Actually, actually, I will pull an item, which is um item G 2G just to discuss.

I'll pull item H.

Okay.

We have all right.

We have item G and H.

Does any member of the public wish to provide public comment on the consent calendar?

And uh if you were in person, please come forward.

Do we have anybody online?

Nobody's online either.

All right.

Um just to let people know that we since we do have Zoom.

If you would l wish to provide a comment on any item, be sure to call in and raise your hand feature on that item.

So we have no speakers.

Uh do we have a motion and a second for the remainder of the consent calendar?

I'll move to approve A through F.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Susie, could you call the roll, please?

Councilmember Darlene.

Aye, Councilmember Silva.

Aye, Councilmember Davini.

Hi.

Mayor Pro Tem Francois.

Mayor Wilk.

Aye.

Motion.

Okay.

Uh since I pulled G, I'll just take on G.

I had thought that we had voted previously on a voting delegate for Cal Cities several months ago.

And I I couldn't remember that.

It is this the first time that we've I went back and looked, and you appointed a representative to the East Bay Division, but not to Cal Cities as a voting delegate.

Okay.

So I'm the voting delegate.

Okay.

I guess I'll make that motion.

I'll second that.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second.

Mayor Welk.

Hi.

Councilmember Darling.

Hi.

Councilmember David.

Hi.

Councilmember Silva.

Hi.

Mayor Protem Francois.

Hi.

All right.

And then on Port Chicago, I just wanted to say thank you to Mayor and others for putting this on the calendar and recognizing it because it is something that was overlooked in history and so impactful in the area.

And I know that the children of the uh the people that were affected by that really appreciate the ongoing recognition for and so I will move to approve.

And I'll second that.

I will second that.

And actually, this is the first year out of the last three or four that I didn't go in person to it.

I just wasn't able to, but I will say that not only does Concord often have representation from their council members, but our Congressman Mark DeSalany has made it a point to always go there.

And this is the reason why there have been the pardons of uh that happens in Washington due directly to Congressman Mark DeSalnier's efforts on that.

So I'm happy to second that and get a girl, please.

Councilmember Darling.

Hi Mayor Welcome.

Hi.

Councilmember DeVinny.

Yes, sir.

I enthusiastically also is very um happy to see this on the agenda and the awareness that's raised about July 17th, 1944.

Councilmember Silva.

Hi.

Mayor Pro Tem Francois.

Hi.

Motion carry Okay.

Next on the agenda is public communications.

This portion of the meeting is reserved for comment on items not on the agenda.

Under the Brown Act, the council cannot act on items raised during public communications, but may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed.

Request clarification or refer to the item to staff.

Consistent with section 9.5 of the city council handbook.

30 minutes will be allocated at this time for public communications for items not on the agenda.

Additional time for public communications for items not on the agenda will be provided at the end of the meeting if necessary.

Written comments submitted have been posted to the city's website for public review and are included in the meeting record, but will not be separately read into the record.

And this time I'll note that the time is 6.18 and we'll take public comments and items not on the agenda until approximately 648.

And then the remainder of any such comments at the end of open session portion of the meeting.

If anybody is online, please use your raise hand feature or press star nine if you're calling in.

If you'd like to provide a remote public comment, and at this time we'll take in-person comments, and we'll then ask the city clerk afterwards if we have any members of the public who would like to provide remote comments.

So if you have if you are a member of the public to talk comment on something not on the agenda, please come forward now.

Oh keep nobody.

This is a first.

Okay.

So we will move on to council member and staff announcements, reports on activities or requests.

Do we have any closed session announcements?

Uh no, Mayor.

There are no closed session announcements.

And city manager reports.

I do not have an update this evening, Mayor.

All right.

Then we have City Councilmember reports on AB 1234 activities, council member assignments, and various activities and upcoming events.

And why don't we start with Councilmember DeVinnie?

Just a few things to report.

Let's see, Mayor uh Pro Tem Francois and I uh attended the uh finance committee meeting on uh June 23rd.

Um things are uh looking uh sorry fiscally healthy, and we'll be discussing our fee study later tonight.

And we spent uh a fair amount of time uh discussing that and happy to see the way that's moved forward.

Um that day um I was fortunate enough to attend a dedication at uh Sugar Loaf Open Space, uh the Rotary Club.

They uh built and dedicated two pergolas to a member of the Rotary Club who'd been very active in our community for a long time.

That's Don Willoughby.

So um, you know, remembering him and um and so it was it was uh special event to be there and um those pergolas will hopefully be there for years for us to enjoy.

Um we I want to this is tough.

I want to sort of apologize to the city of Walnut Creek.

We um disappointed uh a little bit this year on the cornhole tournament.

We we we uh attended uh East Bay Division Cal City's cornhole tournaments um and competed against the other cities, and I I really thought we had it.

We were doing very well, and uh we lost in the semifinals.

So we had one the year before, and I hope that we will um come back and get them again next year.

Um apology noted.

Yes, yeah, it was uh we got a little trophies, but you know well.

Um, it was fun event.

Uh Locust Street Festival was on July 8th.

That was a uh great event.

I was fortunate to be able to stop by for um a short period and and just witness the attendance, uh, music, food, wine, arts, activities.

It was uh a great event, and we're looking forward to uh the next one.

Um we had a trans-PAC meeting.

Uh we spent a good portion of the transportation time uh discussing the transportation expenditure plan process for um measure J to renew measure J and uh we're looking at um what's most important for both us here in Walnut Creek as well as looking taking a um a bird's eye view of what's best for the region and so that will be uh part of a public outreach process that I've discussed before um as our representative to Transpact, but uh look for opportunities to give feedback um as to what the most important issues are um uh for you as far as uh transportation goes, both locally and regionally.

Um so we'll be looking to move that that process forward and hopefully come up with an expenditure plan that's uh very pleasing to the city and the community so that we can renew but renew measure J.

That's all I have.

All right, thank you.

And we're gonna go to Mayor Pro Tem Francois.

Thank you, Mayor.

A few updates as well as Councilmember DeVinny mentioned we attended the finance committee meeting in late June where we primarily talked about the master fee study and the policies that are on our agenda tonight.

We attended the finance committee meeting in late June where we primarily talked about the master fee study and the policies that are on our agenda tonight.

So I won't belabor that because we'll be talking about that shortly.

Also the pleasure of attending an unveiling of the city's mural grant program.

So this is money that the city uh has put forward to promote public arttown, and it was at Zebra Tattoo.

Several of the murals are wrapping around that building, and then another one on Main Street near uh Main Street Kitchen.

And it's really remarkable to see how it's not it's not simple or easy to make these creations, but how it transforms kind of a space, uses buildings as a canvas, and I think it was really well received, adds vibrancy to the downtown and excitement, and people are interested in kind of their urban environment.

We got a lot of great feedback, and I want to thank Elizabeth Orcutt for preparing wonderful remarks for me.

She was here somewhere uh recently, and then uh we had Arts Commissioners, uh Sarah Baltazar was in attendance and former Arch Commissioner Yusmani uh Clauber, uh my colleague Cindy uh Silva was there as well, and and Dan Buckshire, so it was great turnout and uh really fun activity to attend.

The ribbon cutting will be on July 30th.

Okay.

And there will be a formal, are you gonna formal rib ribbon cutting on July 30th at about four o'clock?

Four o'clock at I'm a ventriloquist, he's my ventriloquist at uh Zebra.

Yes, Zebra Tattoo.

July 30th, four o'clock, zebra tattoo.

Really really great program.

Um that was it.

We I did wasn't able to make our last recycle smart uh meeting, so I will let my colleague council member Silva give an update on that.

I just want to remark on how nice it is to see the level of activity downtown with the locust street festival uncorked, but just with all the activity that was happening in and around the World Cup too, we didn't have like what San Jose had with a watching parties or things like that, but several of our local bars kind of serve that function and restaurants, and it was great to see that level of activity downtown.

Really fun.

That's my update.

Great.

Thank you.

Let's go on to Councilmember Darling.

Thank you.

Um and I had a great time.

Um Kevin Wilk, Mayor Kevin Wilk and I can attended the Academy graduation sponsored by the um sheriffs for their academy, and that was where we had four new police officers graduate from Academy, and they are now stepping into the FTO program.

Um exciting.

And then the next one is um Councilmember Silva and I came and welcomed our new dispatcher.

I think the joy that I see on the faces of our captains when they report out that they are milliseconds abay from being absolutely fully staffed, is just really good.

The amount of great job they've done bringing in new recruits, uh laterals, filling the the support positions like dispatcher.

It's been really good to see.

And speaking of filling positions, Katie Burroughs, I went to the chamber board meeting the other day, and we got to meet the new CEO for the chamber.

I'm assuming you're here for the we'll hear you from you later, but so I won't I won't do the whole two-year harnhair thing now.

But um Charles Ching and I went to the chamber, got to meet the new CEO.

We're glad to see the chamber uh moving forward, and we're happy to continue to work in partnership.

And now on to MCE.

As I've been reporting over the last couple months, there have been a number of things going with on within MCE.

As for those of you who don't know, it's the Marin Clean, it was formerly Marin Clean Energy.

It is now MCE, and it represents electricity accounts in Contra Costa, Solano, Napa, and Marin County.

Amongst those accounts, more than 50 percent of them are here in ContraCast County, and we have a broad group of city council and county representatives on the MCE board.

Um the MCE CEO Dawn Weiss, who is the original creator of the agency.

Her last day was Wednesday, June 17th, and the board is now appointed an ad hoc committee to begin the recruitment for a new CEO.

Um we are there's um information on the process coming out from MCE.

Um in the meantime, Vic and Casagian, who has uh been MCO's chief chief operating officer since 2018, will continue to serve as acting CEO.

MCE is committed to its mission, and all of our Contra Costa reps are working hard to make sure that we succeed in our mission to reduce electricity-related greenhouse gas emissions, provide equitable community benefits, and cost competitive clean energy services to the customers throughout the area, including those here in Contra Costa.

We are confident in the agency's ability to continue operations during this transition.

And then speaking of transition, um, for those of you who haven't been following Marin County politics, the Marin County Civil Jur Grand Jury did release a report that included a number of findings about MCE operations.

The MCE board has appointed a ad hoc committee to begin to prepare the response that is required by MCE in mid-September.

I am on that ad hoc committee, and I am confident we are going to continue to work together.

Many of the questions raised by the civil grand jury were already well aware of within MCE, and we're working to make sure that we work through the issues that were raised.

One of the bigger issues within the MCE has been the relative value of short-term power contracts and how much they cost versus the impacts of the reduced greenhouse gases.

MCE gets 50% of our power that we serve to all of you from long-term contracts, 30, 40-year contracts with the different energy projects throughout the state.

We get another 20% from existing PG ⁇ E clean energy resources, including their large hydro assets in the Sierra Nevadas and other projects like that.

We do get 30% of our power that we supply from a variety of other sources.

And we are we have held two technical workshops, and we are going to be working cooperatively to come back to a workshop in the end of August to say what are the policy issues that come to rise about these short-term contracts and their benefits and their costs to try to answer some of the ongoing discussions that we've been having with a couple of the folks up in Marin County who are concerned about those.

As those of you who might recall, in 2024, those short-term energy resources, the cost, I forget if it's doubled or tripled for one year and then went right back down.

And so MCE had to ride that out, and we're still working through the lessons learned from that.

So that's the MCE report.

The good thing is the every four years we have to report to the CPUC, as all other load-serving entities in California do, and we have to prepare an integrated resources plan.

We adopted that our meeting well in advance of the deadline to submit it to CPUC, and it shows that we are in a good position.

We have the resources to serve us.

I think we go through 2045 in that planning document.

So that you know, amidst everything going on with MCE, that was a good doc a good thing to get through.

And our staff is doing a yeoman's job at keeping things running in the meantime.

So that is my report.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Silva.

Thank you.

Um, Councilmember Darling, maybe at some point you could explain what the value of short-term contracts are versus long-term contracts.

How many hours do you have?

Well, that's why I didn't ask you, I didn't ask you the question now.

I just thought maybe somebody might be interested in what that response can be.

Because there's a value of managing your portfolio.

There, yeah, it's it's an incredibly complicated risk management issue.

Um, but I can I'll bring the after the workshop at the end of August.

We'll bring that back.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mayor.

Thank you for my colleagues.

Um I have a lot to report since our last meeting because everybody decided to meet in the summer that I participate with.

First will be that the annual meeting of the ABAC General Assembly.

They was at the end of June, and I attended and voted both as a city council member on behalf of Walnut Creek and as an executive board member.

Two things to note.

We approved and adopted the 2026-27 budget, and there's a what I would call a minor CPI-related cost increase in our dues.

The second was we elected Susan Adams, who's a council member of Roanert Park in Marin County as president, and Wanda Williams, who is a Solano County board member of the Board of Supervisors as vice president for the coming year, and they will both serve for a year.

Moving on to recycle smart, at the June board meeting, we received a presentation from representatives from Recology's Blossom Valley Organics Processing Center.

So this beginning next March when we come new franchise agreements.

Recology will be processing our organics, which is everything in our green bin will go to a site, a processing site outside of Tracy.

And I was able to visit it also in late June, and it is an amazing facility, and boy, is it challenging because they pour everything into these moving conveyor belts, and people are so aspirational about what is organic, you get tennis shoes in there.

So please remember people, organics is growing in your yard, and it's not dog waste either.

The other thing at the meeting in June for Recycle Smart was we received a report from the executive director and Republic Services on the status of their drivers.

It takes to cover our six area, six agency area in this district, takes 202 drivers with two truck, three trucks each.

I mean, so we got three trucks that are picking up in front of our homes, most of us, and then the businesses, and it takes 202 drivers.

Well, they lost six of them in March.

They had to let them go because under the federal government rules, they wouldn't allow them to have driver's licenses anymore because they were allowed to work in this country and they had work permits, but the licenses were lasting longer than the work permit.

And so the DMV just was denied the ability to extend and align the work permit with the license, so six drivers were gone.

Fortunately, they I mean, unfortunately they lost their jobs, but fortunately they replaced the drivers in within a month, and we were back to full full status and our missed routes.

We had more missed routes in March than we were supposed to, and they're now back to normal, but it was an unfortunate situation.

Councilmember DeVinny mentioned the Cornhole Tournament.

I just want to elaborate just a bit.

The League of California Cities does advocacy in Sacramento and in the federal government on behalf of cities, but at times we have to advocate at the ballot box, and so we have to raise money separately from taxpayer dollars to fund those advocacy efforts at the ballot box.

And that was what we were doing.

And those activities and those fundraisers occur all over California.

And there will be another one when we are in Anaheim in September.

So that was the reason for the fun times.

But I also mentioned this because last week was our summer board meeting for the League of California cities.

And we had a six-hour board meeting over two days, and a third of that time was spent on three ballot measures that are going to be hitting the ballot in November across the state.

Now our board of directors has 57 members representing all parts of the state and all different types of people that work for cities.

So and our policy requires that a two-thirds supermajority vote to take any position, whether it's support or oppose on a ballot measure.

So that's why it takes a lot of time to talk about these.

However, I come home to the headline in the East Bay Times that it's it's polling a very high percentage.

So we are likely to have to be prepared to address the issue.

And finally, we took a vote to support Proposition 1, which is the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026.

If approved by the voters, it will create an 11.2 billion dollars in funding for affordable housing developments, and it will be act can be accessed by resources for community development and other local uh housing affordability providers, and it will be a they will be able to tap into these funds.

Speaking of housing, I also attended the National League of Cities Summer Leadership Meeting in Louisville, Kentucky two weeks ago, and there was much to discuss regarding the 21st century Road to Housing Act.

This bill was a the National League of Cities was actively in the mix on that bill for over a year.

Very highly approved by both houses of Congress, very bipartisan.

Um it was enacted, it became law without the president's signature on Friday, July 10th.

He just decided not to sign it, and it automatically became.

So there are many good aspects to that bill.

Three things I will finally I will mention in finality.

Uh Walnut Creek Historical Society celebrated their annual membership event last evening.

And this is a reminder for everyone.

This event was in the beautiful backyard at the Pennman House, and that is available for rent, weddings, receptions, family barbecues, et cetera.

And so just look it up on the Walnut Creek Historical Society website.

The Bedford Gallery's new exhibition opened on July 11th.

It's a juried expedition, the exhibition that celebrates the vibrant environment of our state, and it's called Cal Idoscope, and it runs through September 13th.

And last but not least, the final the third of the Summer Sounds concert series will be Thursday, the 30th of July at 5 30 p.m.

on the plaza in front of the Leisure Center's Center for the Arts, and it will be the Alpha Rhythm King band, and so you can go to the ribbon cutting for the mural program and then co the Alpha Rhythm Kings and then the Newsmakers has a speaker that night as well.

So lots to do on July 30th.

Thank you very much.

And there's a lot to do in Walnut Creek.

So I'll I'll wrap this up.

Um a few things here.

We heard some from some of my colleagues.

There is a lot happening downtown.

And I hear from council members, mayors, and staff members of other cities around the region.

They talk about how Walnut Creek is just killing it when it comes to the events happening in the summer.

So we heard about the Locust Street Festival that was uh that was on July was it 8th or 8th.

And I mean there were thousands.

I think uh the I heard there were four to five thousand people that were there there.

I'm getting nods from the Chamber of Commerce, so we're I'm happy I got that number right.

And uh with dozens of booths, entertainment, dining.

There was a petting zoo for crying out loud.

And I for those of you who watched the mayor's minutes, and evidently we have a hundred thousand views a month right now on the mayor's minutes, that I filmed it at the Locustry Festivals.

You can see the vibe itself.

It was also the launch of our new entertainment zone district, uh, which not only came off without a hitch, it was it was talked about in the media.

It's just a great, it was just a great event.

And you have not missed out if you didn't go there because on August 5th, we're doing it again on uh it's the first Wednesday of August, so come on out, starts at 5:30, goes for about three hours, and you'll see it for yourself.

So come on out, starts at 5 30, goes for about three hours, and you'll see it for yourself.

The weather is terrific at it.

Um as we heard from Councilmember Silva with summer sounds being uh on the on the Leisher Center Plaza, the Rudney Plaza on this past Thursday night, and again on the Thursday night in a couple of weeks.

The Thursdays after that, we've got the Broadway Plaza music programs and uh events on their plaza that happen in August, culminating with the an ABBA tribute band on August 20th.

So the music continues, the entertainment continues.

Kids are back in school early August 6th, though parents definitely have an operator to come out, but it's everything is great for families.

There's so much going on.

Uh one thing that also happened is that uh with our 250th anniversary as a country, America Discovery 250 relay took place here on July 7th.

It's a relay walkers going across America.

I wasn't sure I was going to be incredibly impressed when the kickoff happened, but we were at Heather Farm, and there were people that were walking from Heather Farm up and over Mount Diablo, ending up in Pittsburgh in one day.

So this was just our portion of the relay.

Amazing.

Uh we heard from Councilmember Darling about the police academy graduation, which was terrific.

But I also want to mention the reason that we're able to hire these people full time is because of the decisions the council made with uh with our budget with ARPA funds and with measure O funds that go toward paying for additional police officers, and we are continuing to staff up.

It's constant recruiting because police officers can get injured, they can retire.

Uh their police officers that for some reason may transfer out of Walnut Creek.

I don't know why they would, but it does happen.

So, as our police chief would say, we are we are doing well in the staffing department, and this is because of the budgets that we have decided upon at council to ensure that public safety as one of our top priorities continues to be so.

And lastly, I'll mention that as a county connection liaison.

We have had youth ride free for the last uh it's been about a month and a half now.

It started on June 1st.

The latest youth ride free numbers are 11,600 since the beginning of June, which is three thousand more than the beginning of June in 2025.

And as we talked about earlier, uh looking at the general plan update and what do we need to do?

Transportation came up, and as we continue to get youths used to writing on public transit, the hope is that they are familiar with that and continue to write public transit even after they have a driver's license.

So again, getting cars off the road.

Uh, we did end up having uh some cutbacks in our budget and county connection, but the cutbacks are coming in the administration area, not in service.

So again, continue to take the bus, take BART, take public transit and and help our roadways.

With that, let's move on.

We will uh move on to our next item.

And our next item is a public hearing.

Uh uh it's consideration of the adoption of a resolution levying annual assessments for the Walnut Creek Tourism Business Improvement District for fiscal year 2027.

I want to take a moment to explain the process for public hearing item number 5A.

And in order for the city to levy assessments for the tourist tourism business improvement district, or the TBID, the city council must first conduct a public hearing at which it must hear and consider all protests against the levy of the assessment assessments.

If written protests are received from the owners of businesses in the proposed area, which will pay 50% or more of the assessment provided proposed to be levied, no further proceedings to levy the assessment shall be taken for a period of one year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the city council.

If there is no majority protest, then the council may adopt the resolution confirmed the assessment report submitted.

Written protests must be received by the city clerk at or before the term time fixed for the public hearing.

And at this time, we will now open the public hearing for item number 5A for the tourism business improvement district.

And I invite anyone with an undelivered written protest to present it to the city clerk immediately.

And no further written protests will be accepted.

And now I'll invite Mike Neiman to introduce and provide a brief presentation.

Thank you, Mayor, and good evening.

Uh council, members of the public.

I'm Mike Neiman, your economic development manager.

And as mentioned, this is the public hearing portion of the TBID assessment.

Um we were in front of you on June 16th, where where TBID has provided its uh annual report update and has noticed the public on the continuation to levy assessments.

So this is the second phone where you would adopt a resolution levying annual assessments for the tourism business improvement district for the fiscal year 26-27.

And to date, we have not received any protests.

And this concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

So do we have any questions from council?

Seeing no questions.

Do we have anybody from the public that has a comment they would like to make?

And you'll come up and have two minutes to speak.

I don't see anybody in person.

Do we have anybody online?

No one online.

And nobody online.

Okay.

I will move to adopt the resolution levying the Walnut Creek T bid annual assessment for FY2027.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Susie, could you call the role, please?

Councilmember Darling.

Hi.

Councilmember DeVinny.

Hi.

Councilmember Silva.

Hi.

Mayor Protein Francois.

Hi.

Mayor Welk.

Hi.

Motion carries.

All right.

Moving right along.

Next is item six, the consideration item.

Title Provide Input and Direction on the Proposed User Fee Cost Recovery Policy and Proposed FY27 Master Fee Schedule Updates.

And I invite Administrative Director Kirsten Lacas forward to provide the presentation.

Good evening, Mayor Wilk, members of Council, Kirsten Lacass Administrative Services Director.

And this evening I'm going to walk you through our proposed user fee cost recovery policy and fiscal year 27 master fee schedule updates.

We also have our consultants from Matrix who have joined us remotely, and they'll be available to help answer any questions you have.

So tonight I'm going to start off with some background information and then walk you through the key components of the proposed user fee cost recovery policy as well as the updates to the proposed master fee schedule, and then we will talk about next steps.

So what we're asking of you today is to review the draft user fee cost recovery policy and the proposed master fee schedule and provide input and direction to staff.

So back on June 2nd, staff brought forward the citywide comprehensive user fee study results and recommendations.

As a reminder, this is the first citywide fee study since 2010 and included fee-based services across all departments.

In fiscal year 2026, fee-based services cost approximately 33 million to provide.

Current user fees recover about 21 million of those costs, resulting in an overall cost recovery rate of about 65%.

The remaining 12 million is subsidized through other general fund revenues.

Over time, fee adjustments have generally not kept pace with inflation, contributing to a growing gap between the cost of providing services and the revenue generated from those services.

It's important to note, however, that full cost recovery is not always the goal.

Many services provide broader community benefits and may warrant some level of ongoing subsidy.

The city's fiscal year 26 general fund revenue budget is approximately 105 million.

User fees account for about 20 percent of total general fund revenues, while general revenues comprise the largest share at approximately 71%.

As a reminder, general revenues are derived primarily from taxes, including property tax, sales tax, and transient occupancy tax, and are used to support a wide range of city services.

The remaining 9% represents other department revenues that are not generated through user fees.

These revenues include sources such as business license tax, development impact fees, lease revenue, and reimbursements for damages to city property.

As I mentioned on June 2nd, staff brought forward the results and recommendations from the fee study to council for feedback and input.

Direction the direction we received regarding a proposed policy was to adopt a citywide cost recovery framework based on the level of benefit city services provide.

Include a resident discount as part of the fee schedule for those fees where it's applicable.

Include a phased implementation of significant fee increases.

And your council was supportive of annual fee adjustments to keep pace with service delivery costs and continue market-based pricing where appropriate.

And lastly, evaluating housing division-related service fees separately from impact fees and other development services fees around housing.

So next, I will go through some of the major components of our proposed user fee cost recovery policy.

So this slide shows the key policy areas which incorporate direction council provided on June 2.

The framework starts with the legal requirements that govern how cities can establish fees, the cost of service philosophy and methodology, cost recovery framework, fee setting considerations, subsidy policy, market-based pricing, resident discount, fee review adjustments, and implementation.

So I'll walk through these in more detail on the next few slides.

So the legal framework is the foundation for all fee decisions, establishing the rules and limitations that govern cost recovery and fee setting.

Three key authorities guide this process, proposition 26, and government code sections 50076 and 65104.

Essentially, government fees must be cost based and can only recover the reasonable cost of providing a service or activity.

Cities can recover staff time, overhead, consultant costs, and other service related expenses.

Cities cannot recover costs unrelated to the services or amounts that exceed actual costs.

So generally, a city cannot make a profit on its services it provides.

However, there is an exception for voluntary market-based services.

These are charges for a service that is provided only to those who choose to use it and can be based on market rates rather than cost recovery.

One of the key concepts in the policy is that not all services should recover the same proportion of their costs.

The appropriate level of cost recovery depends on who benefits from the service, affordability considerations, and council policy objectives.

So in general, services that primarily benefit a specific individual or user group have higher levels of cost recovery.

Conversely, services that provide broad community benefit may warrant a greater level of public subsidy.

As you may recall, the comprehensive fee study methodology of calculating the full cost of providing a service included estimating the staff time required to perform the work and then applying a fully burdened hourly rate, and that provided us with the full cost of the fee.

The policy framework then helps determine what portion of that cost should actually be recovered through fees and what portion, if any, should be subsidized.

When we brought forward the fee study again on June 2nd, we discussed three levels of benefit that city services provide.

Since then, staff has refined the framework to provide more clarity around services that primarily benefit individuals or user groups.

So we were now distinguishing between voluntary and non-voluntary services within that category.

So for community benefit services, they provide a broad public benefit and support the health safety and welfare of the community.

Community and individual benefit services provide a direct benefit to a user or participant, but they also create a broader benefit for the community.

Some examples include recreation programs, arts and cultural activities, community events, and some housing related services.

Individual or group benefit on voluntary services primarily benefit a specific individual or user group as the name implies.

The participation is voluntary.

So for this reason, market conditions and customer demand are important considerations when setting fees.

Examples would include facility rentals, private swim lessons, camps, and picnic area rentals.

Individual or group benefit that are non-voluntary also provide benefit to a specific individual or group, but the service is required.

So examples in that category include permits and other regulatory review activities.

So essentially the distinction between the last two categories is really whether the customer is choosing to use a service or whether the service is required as part of a regulatory process.

The cost recovery framework outlined in the policy establishes typical cost recovery ranges for different types of services.

So these ranges are intended to provide guidance and are not specific rules.

That's important because not every service fits neatly into a single category, and in many cases that is by design.

The framework is designed to offer flexibility, allowing the city to determine an appropriate level of cost recovery based on the specific circumstances of each service.

For community benefit services, the typical cost recovery range is zero to 50%.

For services that provide a community and individual benefit, the typical range is 40 to 80 percent.

For individual benefit services that are voluntary or market based, the typical recovery range is 70% to more than 100%.

And again, there are limited circumstances where state law allows the city to set fees based on market rates and demand rather than solely the cost of the service, and those would fall into that category.

Finally, for individual benefit services that are non-voluntary, the typical recovery range is 80 to 100%.

Because these are general regulatory services, state law does limit the cost recovery to no more than the actual cost of providing that service.

So those cannot exceed 100% of the city's costs.

And these ranges are based on industry standards as well as other cities, and then general best practices where those services exist.

And typically they're modified or tailored towards a city or an individual jurisdiction based on the specific goals and targets that are set, so they can be modified.

But again, these are typical recovery ranges that we are setting in the policy, in the proposed policy.

So when staff evaluates fees, cost recovery is just one part of the analysis.

There are several important factors that must be considered when developing or adjusting fees.

These include the balance between community and individual benefit, as we just discussed, council policy objectives, equity and accessibility, demand utilization, and market conditions, and finally fiscal sustainability.

Fiscal sustainability is especially important because fee revenues help fund services the city provides.

As we evaluate fees, we must consider not only affordability and community benefit, but also whether fee revenues are keeping pace with the cost of the services that we provide over time, and maintaining that balance is important to continue providing those high quality services while minimizing the need to subsidize individual services with general fund resources.

So when determining the appropriate level of general fund subsidy, it's important to consider the purpose of the service and the city's policy objectives.

The policy identifies several reasons a subsidy may be appropriate, including promoting affordability and community participation, supporting priority populations such as youth seniors, advancing arts, culture, recreation, and education and community events.

For some regulatory services, a subsidy may also be appropriate if it encourages compliance with health safety or environmental requirements, resulting in benefits to the community as a whole.

Another component of the policy is continuing to use market-based pricing where appropriate.

For voluntary services such as facility rentals, recreation programs, and arts activities, fees should not only reflect the cost of providing the service, but also market conditions.

Staff also considers market demand, utilization levels, comparable agency pricing, and customer expectations when making recommendations.

These fees should be reviewed periodically to make sure they continue to align with market conditions and city objectives.

One of the topics council discussed on June 2nd was the importance of keeping fees aligned with the cost of providing services and avoiding situations where fees fall significantly behind over time.

So to address this, the policy includes provisions for annual inflationary adjustments.

We also discussed that different types of fees are driven by different cost factors, so a single adjustment methodology may not be appropriate for every fee.

For example, labor-intensive services such as permits, inspections, and plan reviews may more appropriately be adjusted based on labor cost increases, while recreation programs, facility rentals, and services with significant operating costs may be adjusted using a CPI.

This approach provides flexibility to use the methodology that best reflects the cost of providing the service.

The policy also supports annual fee reviews to help keep fees aligned with current costs and avoid the need for larger increases in the future.

As part of our existing biannual budget process, staff reviews fees midway through the two-year cycle and brings forward any recommended adjustments for council consideration.

Finally, the policy recommends conducting comprehensive fee studies every five to seven years, including this guidance in the policy helps ensure fees remain aligned with actual service costs, council priorities, and the city's overall cost recovery objectives over time.

So before we move into the master fee schedule, I'd like to revisit a couple of areas where staff refine the policy based on the discussion that we had on June 2nd.

The first is a cost recovery framework.

So general council generally supported the framework concept, but we've refined the categories since that discussion.

Originally the framework included three categories, but based on feedback and further analysis, staff separated the individual benefit category into the two distinct categories I mentioned the voluntary market based services and the nonvoluntary regulatory services.

So that provides better guidance for distinguishing between things like facility rentals, for example, and permit review services.

The recovery ranges shown in the policy are intended to be targets and not prescriptive.

They help inform decisions, but staff recognizes that not every fee will fit neatly within those ranges.

The second item is a resident discount.

Council expressed support for continuing to recognize the contribution Walnut Creek residents make through local taxes.

Staff is recommending a 10% resident discount for applicable programs and services.

In the proposed fee schedule, you'll see both a resident fee and a standard fee.

So staff is proposing that the resident fee apply to all residents in the incorporated areas of Walnut Creek, while the standard fee would apply to all non-residents, including those who live in the unincorporated areas of Walnut Creek.

So before we move into more of the details on the fee schedule in those recommendations, I'd like to pause here and see if you have any feedback or questions on the policy framework, the recovery categories, or the proposed resident discount approach.

Thank you, Kirsten.

It's mouthful.

It is.

Oh.

Questions and then comments.

Yeah.

Right.

Whatever is the pleasure of the council, or we can wait until the end.

I mean, if there's any questions, at this point I was thinking, and then we go from there.

No?

I I have a question.

How will it considering people are often signing up for things online?

How are we going to know or the system will know if somebody is in the unincorporated area of Walnut Creek?

And I would ask Chris Farrow to come up and address that, please.

Chris Farrow, Arts and Recreation Director.

Thanks for asking.

Our current software actually we can lay a GIS map into the program so it will know when the person's address is entered where they uh whether they're in county or not.

We're moving to a new provider as well, and we did verify with the new software uh provider that they will be able to do the same.

Okay.

And the other question I have then is thank you.

Which which proposed fee changes will have the greatest impact on residents and businesses of these categories?

Did you have areas that you felt would be most impactful?

We actually have some additional slides further on in the presentation and then we could so I have a question on the resident versus non-resident.

It's one thing to be able to discern where somebody lives.

It's another to be telling them, oh, you don't live in the city, you have to pay a higher price because you live one house over from the city.

I mean, the these lines are not as clean as one might think.

Can we actually have a policy discussion when the time is appropriate tonight as to whether it should be just all the four zip codes or if we really want to discriminate between that conversation?

This is proposed and we're certainly can take that.

It's up to us.

Well, no, I sometimes people say we but I've heard no before.

No I agree, I think it's a good discussion.

Um council?

Otherwise, we're well I it's it's related to council member Silva's point and uh at the finance committee, and and I guess I'll ask it in the form of a question, but maybe if staff can confirm that this is appropriate or correct, that the difference between the city rate, the resident rate and the non-resident rate is that if it's if you apply for a program online, essentially a swimming class or some some of the other things that you could do online, it'll tell you the rate if you're if the software will figure out whether you're a resident or not and say, okay, it's 11 dollars if you're a non-resident.

If you sign up as a resident, it comes up as $10.

I don't think the general public will that it's here and it's public in terms of what the different rates are, but they won't know that their neighbor that's in the city is paying a dollar less for the class because they're a city resident.

Don't we post prices someplace in a cat in a even an online catalog?

There they will be posted.

This is it.

So get out your reading glasses and um wait.

You mean I I sign up for a class without being able to see the price?

I don't think so.

Prices are also indicated in the activity guide, but I'll defer to Chris.

So there are actually state laws about price transparency.

So the prices will be a good thing.

Whether you're online, whether you are doing it in person, whether you're doing it over the phone, you will be told the full price, and it will list both the residents.

Well the discount and the standard rate both will be evident to Mayor Pro Tem's point.

If you were to go in, you already have an account established, it knows you're a let's just say resident in this case, and you click through.

The price that you would see would be the resident because the system knows to charge you that.

So I think that's what your point was.

If the URL non-resident, the system would already know that.

I think the only time that you might really it might jump out to you is the first time you're setting up your account.

Um you might not see that screen till the end, perhaps, um, and the new software, I'm not quite sure so sure.

Um, but for transparency, if you were just scrolling through the list of programs available to you, you would see both price points.

Um you're not selecting it, the computer is selecting it for you, but both price points would be visible on the screen when you are viewing that course.

So it's appropriate for us to have this conversation.

It's council's uh pleasure to have that conversation.

Well, Chris, while you're there too, then in terms of So the distinction is that essentially for classes that are require basically online registration where the software can easily distinguish between a city resident and a non-resident, those programs were the ones that staffs recommending, some of them, not all of them, a differential discount for city residents.

Right.

So there were some operational examples where we wouldn't be able to uh apply the discount because we don't know people's address.

So for example, if you were to go to the pool, you're not taking a lesson or taking a class, you're just there to do recreational swimming.

Um we do a point of sale transaction when you enter.

So we're not entering your personal information, your address, and things like that.

So operationally, we can't discern who is a resident and a non-resident.

So to um to answer your question, we are applying it where it is operationally available to us to apply it.

Okay.

Thank you.

We could still have the conversation.

Yes.

So we'll still have the conversation.

Of course.

Okay.

Um we have from here.

So I guess we'll continue.

Thank you.

So next I will go through the proposed master fee schedule updates for fiscal year 27.

So our master fee schedule contains over 700 fees.

However, the fees that were included as part of the comprehensive fee study were just over 600 fee line items.

And so of those fees, the fee amount is going to be unchanged for about 257.

And to further clarify that, the 164 have no change at all, and the other 93 are administrative or wording changes.

285 are proposed to be adjusted, and there are 74 new fee line items.

So I'm going to go into these last two categories in more detail in the next few slides.

So for the proposed fee adjustments, the most significant fee increases really are generally concentrated in the lower volume specialty services and complex regulatory applications.

And so examples of those include building valuation schedules, complex planning applications, specialty administrative fees, and premium rentals.

So based in some market-based services.

So that's where you'll see the significant fee increases.

The fees most commonly paid by residents, such as recreation programs, aquatics, common residential permits, and community services generally reflect more incremental adjustments.

The largest dollar value adjustments occur within the community development's valuation-based building permit schedule.

And the largest percentage increases generally occur on lower dollar administrative or specialty fees where the proposed fees move closer to the cost of providing the service.

And some examples of those are return check fees, arrest record reviews, record ceiling.

So there are some administrative fees like that within the departments.

So for our new fee line items, of those 74, approximately 68% are associated with the affordable housing agreement administration and compliance activities within the housing division.

Although these activities are now being identified separately in the fee schedule, staff is recommending they continue to be fully subsidized, resulting in no charge to customers at this time.

As a reminder, these costs are unrelated to impact fees or other housing-related development fees.

Approximately 21% of the new fee line items are associated with arts and recreation services.

Many of these are related to recreation service categories that are being more clearly defined and separated within the fee schedule rather than representing entirely new programs or services.

Examples include pool rentals, picnic area rentals, private swim lessons, arts programming, and public art activities.

The remaining new fee line items are largely administrative, regulatory, and support services.

It's also important to note that some of these entries are a result of reorganizing the fee schedule for clarity and consistency.

In some cases, fees were moved into the citywide section from other areas and then consolidated there.

So this slide categorizes the fees proposed for adjustment by theme and benefit category.

So about 73% of the fee adjustments are tied to either market-based services or cost recovery services, where the framework generally accepts users to pay a larger or sorry, expects users to pay a larger share of the cost.

The remaining 27% are in areas where affordability participation and community services remain important considerations.

In those cases, staff is recommending continued subsidies to help balance cost recovery with the broader community goals.

So when we look at all of the proposed fee recommendations through the lens of the policy framework, about 77% of the fees fall within the proposed recovery ranges.

So the majority of the fee schedule is generally aligned with the framework.

About 18% of the fees fall below the framework ranges.

These are primarily arts and recreation, cultural programs, recreation services, and other community serving activities where the subsidy is intentional.

In those cases, affordability participation and community access are important policy objectives.

The remaining 5% of the fees fall above the framework ranges.

These are largely existing market-based fees, such as certain facility rentals and other services where pricing is influenced by market demand.

In some cases, reducing those fees would result in a loss of revenue and could affect fiscal sustainability.

So staff is not recommending reductions of those fees at this time.

The first fee changes are driven by four primary factors.

The first category is cost recovery alignment.

So these are generally permit review, inspection, and other regulatory fees where the cost of providing the service has increased over time and fee revenues have not kept pace.

So staff is recommending adjustments to move those fees closer to cost recovery.

Examples many building permit fees, planning application fees, and other regulatory services.

The second category is inflationary adjustments.

So these are generally more modest increases intended to maintain current recovery levels as labor operating and service delivery costs increase over time.

The goal is not necessarily to increase cost recovery but to avoid falling further behind.

Examples include recreation programs, camps, swim lessons, and other services where the city is maintaining an intentional subsidy but adjusting fees to reflect rising costs.

The third category is market-based adjustments.

These are voluntary services where pricing is influenced not only by cost recovery but also demand utilization and comparable agency pricing.

Examples include facility rentals, theater rentals, and other services that operate in a competitive market environment.

The final category is right sizing adjustments.

These occur where existing fees no longer align with the service being provided or where the fee structure itself needs refinement.

In some cases, this that means increasing fees, in others, decreasing fees, and then some creating more transparent fee categories.

Examples include separating facility and rental components, creating more specific rental classifications, restricturing certain recreation fee categories, and reducing fees where the study found existing fees exceeded the intended recovery level.

So the next few slides provide a general overview of the changes in each of the functional areas that we've talked about.

And the first one is arts and recreation.

Essentially, the proposed changes are balancing affordability, access participation, and cost recovery.

Recommendations include selective fee increases, a resident discount of 10% for applicable fees, and continued market-based pricing where appropriate.

Some facility rentals and programs may remain above cost recovery ranges where market demand supports pricing and revenues help offset subsidies for community serving programs.

Fees that are changing, examples would be swim lessons, camps, pool rentals, and facility rentals.

Next, we have the planning division in the community development department.

In general, the adjustments are addressing significant cost recovery gaps.

Planning fee adjustments are primarily focused on improving cost recovery for applicant-driven services with fee increases in key application types.

Planning services currently recover substantially less than the cost of providing the service, so proposed changes better align the fees with those service costs.

Adjustments affect entitlement, discretionary review, and development application fees.

These adjustments will reduce the subsidy for applicant-driven services.

And some of the changes include permit, plan check, and valuation-based fees.

In the community development department building division, in general, fees are being right-sized to better reflect the cost of service.

Building fees contain some of the largest proposed adjustments in the fee schedule.

Increases are concentrated in higher value and more complex projects that require greater staff time and technical review.

Some fees are reduced where existing fees exceeded intended cost recovery levels, as I mentioned earlier.

Overall adjustments improve cost recovery while aligning fees more closely with actual service costs.

Some of those changes include general plan amendments, conditional use permits, and sign program reviews.

The final community development division is housing.

And this is, as I've mentioned previously, it's a new section in the master fee schedule.

These services are primarily related to the Affordable Housing Administration, housing assistance and compliance monitoring.

And as I mentioned earlier, they're evaluated separately from private development related services.

And so, although the fee study did identify the cost of providing these services, staff is recommending they continue to be subsidized because they support broader housing affordability and housing production objectives.

So, as a result, no fees are proposed to be charged at this time.

Engineering is one of the areas with the fewest recommended changes because many existing fees are already relatively well aligned with the cost of providing service.

The recommendations focus on targeted updates and administrative refinements, which is essentially rewording names to make things more clear where that was needed.

Engineering will also continue to rely on actual cost and deposit-based billing for more complex projects where level of effort can vary from project to project.

A few examples include encroachment permits, site development and sub-development, subdivision review activities, traffic and transportation reviews, and engineering inspections.

In open space within public works, the fee adjustments essentially improved cost recovery while encouraging compliance.

Many fees increased moderately rather than moving immediately to full cost recovery, which could be phased in gradually.

Recommendations seek to balance affordability compliance and cost recovery.

Updates are proposed for tree permit, arborist, and open space related fees.

Police services continue to be primarily funded through general tax revenues because public safety provides a broad community benefit.

The proposed fee adjustments are limited to licensing, permitting, regulatory, and administrative services that directly benefit individual applicants.

Some increases are moderated below full cost recovery to reduce customer impacts.

Recovery recover more of the cost of applicant specific services.

And some examples include massage establishment and technician permits, public entertainment permits, citation sign-off, and record review requests.

So this slide talks about the revenue impact considerations.

So the proposed fee adjustments are intended to better align fees with the cost of providing services and improve cost recovery.

If service demand remained consistent with fiscal year 26, the updated fees would generate additional revenue.

However, as reported with the third quarter revenue projections in May, fee revenues were projected to finish approximately 1.7 million below budget due to declining activity.

As a result, the proposed fee updates are expected to primarily offset those revenue declines and maintain current cost recovery levels rather than generate a significant net increase in fiscal year 27 revenue.

As part of the fee study, we also compared the city's fees with those charged by comparable jurisdictions.

Overall, the proposed fees across all departments are better aligned with neighboring jurisdictions.

Most regulatory fees fall within the range charged by comparable agencies.

Building and planning fees generally remain at or below market while improving cost recovery.

Arts and recreation reflects market-based pricing for premium facilities and programs.

So after we receive your input and direction this evening, we will return to your council on August 18th for the adoption of the fiscal year 27 master fee schedule and user fee cost recovery policy.

Additionally, we will bring forward fiscal year 27 budget adjustments related to sales tax projections and vacancy rate adjustments as needed to balance the general fund budget.

Staff is recommending that adjustments to the fee schedule take effect on January 1st of 2027 in order to allow time to communicate with stakeholders and account for any necessary implementation changes.

So our recommended action this evening is to review the draft user fee cost recovery policy and the proposed fiscal year 27 master fee schedule updates and provide input and direction to staff.

And with that, we have the consultants as well as staff to answer any additional questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kirsten.

That's a lot to go through.

So let's start with uh or any further questions here.

Let's hold off on the um uh the residents that are in the unincorporated area for the commenting afterwards and when we have after Ed V any public uh input as well, and we'll have that part of the conversation.

But so let's have other questions that relate to this right now.

Councilmember Darling, you are ready to go.

I'm ready to go.

Thank you, Kirsten.

That's a lot.

It's a lot, and I really appreciate the the way you've displayed it.

It has made it easy to look at.

My question is more for those, I know we have been working very hard on our how we process building permit applications, engineering and stuff like that.

So when it comes to the adjustments to those, we've not only made sure we're being as efficient as possible in how we're issuing the permit, and now we are aligning the cost with that more efficient process.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

And I would ask if Erica could come up, one of our members of the development services team and help answer that question around the efficiencies.

Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Council members, America Van and Brown, community development director.

In answer to your question, um, yes, there have actually been three different um initiatives since the original fee study for the current fees were done.

So in 27 and 2018, there was the first version of Blueprint for success.

And so that made changes.

And then whenever during COVID there were additional changes which were made to create efficiencies to put more permitting activities online and make it easier to customers.

And then we're now currently, as you had noted, going through a process of lean process improvements.

And so that is still relatively new, so we haven't been able to fully capture the benefits of that, but we will be able to do so in the future.

Okay, thank you.

And I think that hopefully that will reassure people that we're working to make this as efficient as possible.

Mayor Protend Francis.

I had one uh that I didn't didn't occur to me until after the finance committee on nonprofits.

Do we have a policy?

I've noticed there's a nonprofit discount for certain facility rentals, but I'm not sure I saw something in the user fee cost recovery policy indicating what that discount is.

So we don't have anything specific in the policy.

We could certainly add that.

We do have some indication of what qualifies as a nonprofit, but in the sports and camps area, but I would ask if Chris could come up and help address that question your question is very timely.

Adjustment with staff to discuss this today.

Um so currently we uh don't have a set policy, but we do uh by practice allow anyone with a 501 status.

So that could be a C3, it could be a C7.

Um, all of them qualify currently, but that's again not written, so we will be codifying that.

And is the numeric discount 10 percent or is there a standard?

I don't know the percentage off the top of my head, but it is in the fee schedule that comes forward.

Okay, we do include that as a separate price in the published fee schedule.

Can I build on one more question on this arena?

What do you do about social clubs?

There are some long-standing clubs in the community that never file the charter bylaws, they don't really have a bank account.

Somebody is taking money from their members and putting it in their personal checking account and paying the bills.

They don't have a tax ID number.

How do we categorize those and wean them off of this habit?

So we encourage them to get a social club 501, which I believe is a C7.

Okay.

But we do have a uh we're working on a process for all of our grandfathered um organizations, and I'd say there's probably five, six of them who have been renting from us for let's say 20 years, um, and they've paid a discounted rate, which was loosely based on our nonprofit rate over the years.

So we are developing a phased-in approach.

Um we're looking at a probably a five-year plan to get them up to the appropriate uh fee structure.

So we'll be working on that in the next few weeks.

Um so our goal is to get everyone caught up.

Maybe some of those clubs will decide to get a 501c7 and then they would qualify for the nonprofit, and those that don't, they will have a phased-in approach to get them caught up to the fee schedule.

There's also the option, this is not so much for social clubs, but just to more broadly answer the question.

Um there are some folks who um I just lost my train of thought.

It's not social clubs.

I used that term loosely.

I wasn't meant to be.

But it reminds me we have some.

Oh, I tried to do that.

I want to talk about um MOUs.

So we do have some um organizations who have MOUs with us, um, and that's usually a little bit of a of a give and take relationship.

So for example, our little league uh in Walnut Creek does not pay the standard published rate, um, but we have a signed MOU with them, and that is because they are also giving us something in return.

So for Little League specifically, they're doing a lot of the field maintenance where uh they're playing, they're doing the field prep, um, so they're doing some of the work.

So we then go and we codify that in an MOU to say here's what little league is going to contribute, and then the city is going to give you a price break because of that.

So that's where we would like to sit moving forward is to get out of some of these grandfathered relationships and get us into official MOUs that are on record, um, and then to get everyone else to the published approved fee schedule.

So maybe you can help me understand, and I don't know which page I'm supposed to be on.

I saw it and then I lost it, but some there seems to be a resident and a standard rate being proposed for groups.

So how how do you tell if a group is a let's take a service club, one of the animal clubs.

And how do you know if it's a walnut creek how do you know if it's local or so there's a couple ways to do that?

So it's ultimately a council decision.

Um what staff are recommending is that it would be based on the percentage of residents that were either members or on rosters, et cetera.

Um so it would be 51% or more walnut creek residents when again, whether that's a a member or a team player, etc., then they would qualify for the resident discount.

So you're going to have to have rosters because you're not able to, you're gonna have to trust the roster.

Correct.

By the way, the post office moved half of my daughter's third grade soccer team to Alamo, but never actually moved them, they just changed postal addresses.

So then the U.S.

Postal Service seems to reign supreme sometimes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Chris, I I just had one more, and this was from a resident who is a recreational swimmer and it asked about kind of the the rate, our rates for swimming compared to other cities, and just want if you did the market research on that and can let us know where we stand.

Sure.

Um so there's a a couple different ways to come across which cities you use for comparable studies.

And that philosophy changes depending on which rate you are studying.

So for example, if you are looking at a facility rate for somewhere like our new Heather Farms, you're gonna have a wedding there.

Well, people aren't necessarily looking for a wedding venue that's within 10 minutes of their house, right?

They're just looking for a beautifully aesthetic pleasing place that meets their budget.

They might be willing to look 50 miles away.

So you use comp cities for that specific purpose, knowing where people are willing to drive.

Somewhere like a pool, you're gonna tighten that distance a little bit.

We're not competing with people on the peninsula, for example.

Are there some exceptions?

Sure, people who commute or or whatnot.

But for the most part, for those types of classes, we're gonna comp against people that are probably a 15-minute drive from us, our neighboring cities.

So that is what we did.

Um we looked at Concord, Pleasant Hill, San Ramone, Danville.

I think we went as far as Dublin, Pleasanton moving in that direction, and then Antioch and Brentwood moving uh east from us.

So that was the areas that we looked at.

Um so in that we are right in uh where we should be.

We're not the highest and we're not the lowest um looking at aquatics specifically.

Um passes are a little bit harder to compare because you don't see any consistency with how cities do passes.

Um some cities might bundle them in groups of 10, some might say it's unlimited for the month, some might say if you only use it on the weekend.

So it was really hard to find comparable pricing for passes, so we stuck with looking at comps for the gate and individuals and then just applied um kind of logic when using the gate fee multiplying it out to get past numbers.

Thank you.

I appreciate you doing that investigation.

Absolutely.

Um Mayor, can I?

Don't leave one of the fee areas that I mentioned in our June meeting was that we have picnic areas in the arts and recreation department and we have picnic areas in the open space.

That is not user-friendly because people go in looking for a picnic area and they may land in one or the other, but not be able to say the full offering.

Is it feasible?

And I'm asking you to play nice in the sandback with Mike Vickers.

Is it feasible to I understand that public works is running the open space and you're running the recreation park ones?

Is it feasible to offer them as for service that you buy them and you can see and compare what you're paying for and what your options are as if they were in one city?

We've already uh met, so Rich and I had a conversation, and actually just earlier today, Mike and I had a conversation.

So you'll happy to know that we're actually already using the same software platform.

Um so we're going to look at a way to display that information that is more user-friendly.

But the conversations have begun.

So that answer is the fee schedule should basically cross-reference the two, and they should be able to be compared.

Yes.

One re one side is listing it large down to many, and the other side is listing it small to large.

Work in progress, but we are heading in the right direction.

Okay.

Councilmember DeVinnie.

And I I think am I the last one with questions?

Yes.

Because mine might start blurring into comments.

So let's focus on question, then we'll go to public uh comment.

Okay, we'll go to comments.

Okay.

Um I think it was like the second to last slide, there was um maintaining current service delivery was mentioned as a goal.

And there was like a 1.7 million dollar deficit.

Is that I interpret that correctly?

There was when we came in May to report on the projections for fiscal year 26.

We were projecting close to a 1.7 million deficit on the on revenue stream from related to fees.

And so and the deficit is benchmarked against the current like service delivery, what what we're currently delivering, the cost of delivering that, and the what we're expecting to reimburse with fees came in a hundred percent.

I'm well 1.7 million below target or below.

It's below what our estimated revenue budget was.

And so we were really just comparing to what the budget was for those fees and then where we're projecting to end the year.

And that difference was about 1.7 million.

Okay, and that is subsidized by the general fund.

Correct.

And in the case of the third quarter report, it's also subsidized.

It's subsidized by the general fund, but it can be a combination of other revenues or higher, or we have savings on the expenditure side.

Okay.

That'll be for my question then.

Great.

All right.

Thank you.

I a couple of other questions.

Okay.

Okay, go ahead.

So this is one to the housing division.

Um, every time I see the housing division fees, I'm afraid the public may be confused that we're talking all housing and not affordable housing without having heartburners.

There are a way to change the nomenclature slightly, so it's clear that we're really talking about affordable services.

Hello, Erica Vandenbrand, again, community development director.

And the answer to that is yes.

We can be clear with um how we describe it and arose as because our housing division isn't dealing with market rate housing proposals.

Um generally not.

So that they're dealing with market rate developers who are required to provide inclusionary housing and below market rate housing.

Right.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

And I noticed in the policies and in the phrasing, both the term discount and preferential pricing has been used.

Did we were we meeting something different?

And I can't precisely say what page it was on, but was in the narrative of the policy, or do we actually just interchangeably use the term discount?

The the only difference may be related to the nonprofit and military rates, maybe a preferred pricing versus discount, but we can certainly make that consistent within the policy.

And maybe we can talk about which term we think is the better term.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

So now why don't we open it up for public comment?

And if we have anybody from the public that's here in uh the chamber, please come up uh to the dais and you'll have two minutes to speak.

And if there's any member for the public that would wish to make comments remotely, then please raise your hand or uh press star nine and we'll put you in the queue for that.

So let's first come to the chamber here.

Do we have anybody that's going to be speaking in public comment on this item?

I see none.

Do we have anybody online?

We have nobody online.

So we'll close public comment, come back to the council for comments, and we can have the discussion on residents of Walnut Creek versus residents of the unincorporated area of Walnut Creek as well.

Uh and actually, Councilmember Silva, why don't we kick it off with you since that was your topic?

So my gut tells me that we shouldn't be treating people who by virtue of where they bought a house or where they decided to rent an apartment different from our regular residents who are in the incorporated area.

Our unincorporated residents pay most pay as much sales tax as our city's residents because the stores are the where the stores are.

What they don't pay is property tax.

And that's a and so I just feel like if we're going to be inclusive with our group, it's easier just to keep track of it that way.

And it's a wall preferred pricing for walnut creek residents.

It's as simple as that.

So I have a question in the little question on that.

Do we have any analysis of the of what are we what our revenues are from unincorporated walnut creek residents?

Uh and what the cost do we actually have a number?

I guess that's what I'm looking for.

Is it do we have an idea of a ballpark figure that we're even discussing here?

Is it a thousand dollars or is it $50,000?

We we don't actually have the data at that level of detail.

So when we look at, for example, our sales tax data, it really is based on walnut creek.

Can I also point out that if you ask for the creakers, they're gonna be they're gonna apply as a walnut creek group to use the ball fields, but they're not gonna be able to tell you that Mike Howard lives in unincorporated on Tiburon and Joe Blow lives.

I mean, that is just getting down to the level of detail where the the bulk users are coming in as walnut creekers.

So what would you go to Councilmember Darling?

What would you propose as the way to then uh unravel it so that all walnut creek city or I'm sorry, all people that have walnut creek as an address then would qualify for the discount.

Would it just be purely on zip codes?

That's all it takes is to do four zip codes, but I don't know if the software supports that.

Okay, I'm getting a nod.

I mean, there are people that live I live on Glenhaven, and there are people that live in the half of Glen Haven is in the city and half is in unincorporated, and they don't know where the line is.

Okay, Councilmember Darley.

Yeah, I too live about 10 feet from the boundary, and our elementary school population is split.

And you know, I so after we had this big discussion last time, I went through and asked different folks, do you know if you are the city or the county?

And they know.

There are people here in the in the in our unincorporated areas who might not know, but the first time they call for law enforcement, the first time they have uh any other kind of service request they know.

So my my research within our community is that not everybody, but a lot of people do understand if your street sign is not green, you are in the county.

If your street sign is not green, you are in the county.

Um if we start saying, well, if you live in the county but you have a walnut creek address, then the situation you were in with your daughter's um sports team.

The same thing could happen.

The the post office periodically, they changed a bunch of people that were walnut creek.

Unincorporated into Alamo.

And so in my mind, the hard and fast thing that we control is who pays property tax.

That help us with our general fund.

And if you are somebody that pays property tax that benefits your the general fund, you can have a discount on these fees because your property tax is coming to us.

So that's my thought on it.

I know it's complicated and I know it's gonna be I I recognize that um the staff implementing it are going to have challenges with groups.

It will be an automatic if somebody is reserving a room and it costs less for a city resident.

They will, you know, but the same thing has always happened.

The people that wanted to go to our elementary school found a grandmother who lived in this service, and you know, so there's we recognize it's not clean cut, but I think who which city you're in as an official resident paying property tax too is a concrete thing that doesn't change without a lot of process.

Yeah, you know, I I had initially kind of wrestled with this issue as well, given my neighborhood as well as a lot of city and county residents.

And I just from an administrative ease of implementation, and then also, you know, sixty-two percent of our city residents supported measure o and in my mind this is a way, a small way, of saying thank you for that.

Here's another benefit you get from supporting measure o is that you get a city discount.

And I I recognize that the tech the sales tax burden is shared by more than just city residents, but the the property tax burden isn't in it.

So I would be inclined to just leave it at city residents.

I don't think it affects I could be wrong.

I don't think it affects that many fees at that huge of a level.

Other than maybe some facility rentals.

But that's kind of the conclusion I reached on it.

I I would leave it at the discount for city residents.

Um Councilmember DeVinia have any thoughts on this one.

Yeah, I think I'm still where I was last time, which is giving the discount to the folks that are paying property taxes in Walnut Creek.

Um I understand the argument uh expand it's all of Walnut Creek, I understand the sales tax.

Um I think last time my counter was yeah, but other folks in neighboring cities also come here and buy things and pay sales tax, and so you know, how is that much different?

Um so I would continue to support it the way it's written right now.

Okay.

I guess for me, uh and then we'll go to other comments beyond this.

Um for me, I'm I'm weighing slightly on the side of if they have Walnut Creek as an address, and the reason is because I think that in many cases, whether people live down uh one of the streets off of Walnut Boulevard or Homestead, suddenly there's like Marshall is suddenly a unincorporated area street.

There's actually one in Rancho Paraizo that's uh just one street is unincorporated, and I think there's enough feeding sometimes of disenfranchisement, which is why I was looking to see what what are we talking about in terms of dollars here.

It just seems that the risk reward here is we get a lot more reward for people feeding like, hey, I live in Walnut Creek, even though I'm not in the incorporated area.

Um Walnut Creek recognizes me, and really what is it gonna end up costing us a few thousand dollars, but all of Walnut Creek is included and welcomed in this versus people feeding again a bit disenfranchised and boy, Walnut Creek doesn't even value value me.

I'm gonna go shop somewhere else or or whatever else they do.

So it just seems to me that the reward here is out uh outpaces what the risk potential would be on the downside.

I mean, I could live with either, I guess that's how I'm leaning though on that one.

Um so that's my my feelings on that.

Uh before we go to any kind of a uh a vote on this, let's talk about any other comments that we have in any other areas of the presentation.

So why don't we start with Councilmember Davin on this one?

Um yeah, I first I I want to thank uh Kirsten and Ministry of Services, the finance division, all the departments that participated in evaluating their fees and the fee study because um it certainly looks like it was a a lot of work.

So thank you for that.

Um I appreciate the um adjustments that were made from the last time we talked, creating the four categories.

I think that reads very logically to me.

I like the the breakdowns.

I agree with the rough you know, numbers as far as trying to fall within a certain category of um subsidization.

Um I continue though to have the I I feel that we should still have something in this policy that really is looking at it from even higher level of what what is so that's why I was asking about our goal.

Um you know, we were we were subsidizing at approximately 11 million dollars a year, I think, from the general fund to support services, um, so recovering approximately two thirds of that uh through the fee model, and we could have done this study um and perhaps at the end of that arrived at um like 40 percent subsidized or 10 percent.

And I I would like to see us have some sort of goal as to as our philosophy as a city could be in section three um where it says cost recovery philosophy.

What is our philosophy like?

Are we are we um intending to subsidize approximately one third or sixty to sixty-five percent or seventy sixty five to seventy, or what what is our sort of um our philosophy as far as uh you know overarching?

So it doesn't maybe it would creep outside of that goal, and then we might have to start looking at how to keep it like more in line with with our with our goals.

And one way we could do that is is through um you know a percentage.

The other way we could look at that is through this is the amount we want to subsidize from the general fund could fall within a certain number.

Now I originally looked at that thinking that's sort of challenging because they're not necessarily direct costs, percentages of an employee's time, things that might be hard to measure, but then when I heard at the end the goal of maintaining the service delivery model, and we had a 1.7 million dollar deficit and the general fund was referenced.

I don't know, maybe that's the area to target as far as having that language.

I think the percentage would be a little bit easier.

I think it also supports what's written in the um policy statement in um you know purposes and policy objectives.

1.1.

The third line is maintain transparency regarding the use of general funds or other non-fee subsidies.

So we're being very transparent as to like this is what we're subsidizing from the general fund.

So let people know like that's that's the way the fee structure works.

Not only do I think it's good from a transparency standpoint and just sort of a policy standpoint, but I also think it helps with public, you know, like a public narrative and messaging, because so often we hear things like, oh well, you know, you just want to put in more parking meters so you can make a bunch of money for the city, or there's this concept that that fees are sort of just like this profit center, and if we could plainly sort of point to actually no, our our philosophy is to subsidize these services by 30 percent, and and this is how we did that.

I think it would help with those conversations as well.

Okay.

Well, just I'm curious uh council member Davinny.

Can you you gave a a couple of different ways of how we could accomplish that?

But do you have a like a specific proposal in terms of what the policy would be?

I'm curious where it falls right now as far as percentages.

I know you said it aligns better with other cities and what they're doing.

Do we do we know about what that percentage wound up being?

So initially, prior to the fee study, we were at about 65% citywide, and so now we're closer to between 70 and 72 percent.

And again, that's kind of comparing it to uh fiscal year 26 information that we have, but um so what it would be going up about five to seven percent based on the proposed fees.

So we'd be subsidizing about 28 percent of um looking forward, you know, finance question is um like do we anticipate that percentage going up or down?

Um I think that partly depends on kind of what happens in the economy and how our costs change over time, but I think it's certainly something we could evaluate during the upcoming two year budget process and really look at what the effect would be of having you know a set percentage because we won need to keep in mind that each of the fees have different cost recovery levels, and so really um looking at what the effect of that would be, but we can certainly look at that during uh budget cycle.

And does it make sense from the way you follow the fees and calculate the budget to um look at a subsidy from the general fund as a as an indicator of how much we're subsidizing the fee the the services provided by the fee schedule, or does it make more sense to look at a percentage?

Since I that I since that last goal kind of spoke to the general fund and looking at subsidizing through the general fund.

So just my initial thoughts on that as part of this conversation would probably be looking at a percentage, just because that would be something that um would be would allow us to you know the ultimate revenue impacts would be changing depending on that percentage versus a set dollar amount.

Okay.

Then I guess maybe uh between we we'd want to subsidize between 25 and 35 percent of fees, and then now we've got some sort of boundaries beyond which if we start to stray we have to look and go, hmm.

Oh, we're not in that range anymore.

Is that are we outside of a range that we want to be in?

I no, I pr I appreciate that, and I think it's a it's a good conversation.

Um I remember asking the city manager about this and and and hearing that there's really not a set metric, and that's that makes it difficult, I think, for me to go, okay, that's what we're shooting for.

That's the to quantify it, right?

Because there's qualitative standards here that say if it's an individual that's benefiting more, we should recover more.

And if it's a community that's benefiting more, we should subsidize we we're open to subsidizing more.

Not that we will, but we'll have that conversation.

Maybe and then also asking and hearing that you know, even that 65%.

I think we did look at our comparable cities and found that we weren't an outlier, that we were in the middle, but some sort of an examination as part of the I think you do this anyway.

I don't know if we need to codify it, but if we if we feel we need to to work into the cost recovery philosophy that we will consult with and examine kind of our neighboring jurisdictions to make sure that we're within no more than a five to ten percent deviation from what their cost recovery percentages are or something like that, or so can I chime in here when you're done also?

Yeah, I mean I I I'd welcome kind of other input on it, but I that's where I struggled with kind of setting a a standard because there really isn't one is what I was told.

Yeah.

So what you hear is Walnut Creek is different.

We offer more services.

And what that number of 65% includes the police department and the building and planning departments and the housing division, which are more standardized city services.

So the only way I could I could imagine us doing a cost recovery comparison is to isolate the arts and the community services that are truly arts and recreation and public open space and figuring out what that cost recovery is and comparing it to like the Pleasant Hill Recreation, it's not a department, it's a it's a district, and the Hayward district, where you're really looking apples to apples, not apples to bread, because when you take a full service city, many of those services that we have in the police department aren't supposed to expect to get recovery percentages, and they're pulling our percentage down.

So it's if we wanted to set a standard, I think we have to consider what business that would be in and find our parallel partners in that and do it that way as opposed to thinking about Concord, which that doesn't have a Lexure Center for the Arts, doesn't have his robust of these things.

Uh Councilmember Darling, any further comments?

And but and by the way, so you're not looking for any kind of a vote.

This is just direction tonight, but obviously we still have to come probably have to have an internal vote on direction for resident versus non-resident fees.

But other than that, you're just getting some indication and direction from us in in general.

Yes, and then we would incorporate that into the policy for the next meeting.

Okay.

Thank you.

And so I've thought a lot about the consistency, and and I agree that it is always better to have something that's clearly articulated, and yet then I start trying to lump and split and it becomes more difficult.

So I think including a narrative goal that our goal is to make to ensure that we are within the mid-range of our adjacent cities and a cost comparison for and I'm assuming the staff is not looking at you know, take a still leisure compared to something in Concord, but they're looking at swim lessons in Concord, swim lessons at Walnut Creek.

So we could include a narrative description that says we strive to be comparable and competitive with our neighboring jurisdictions, and then on the cost recovery because there's some valuations implicit in it that are difficult to put numbers on, like yes, is it teaching a child to swim and saving their life worth 33% subsidy compared to you know it um so I I I agree with you that finding a way to be more consistent is good.

I struggle with whether or not we can do it right now, but having that out there is something that over time we're going to be working at better articulating this, and if we get to the point where we feel comfortable putting ranges in there, I think you're you're right.

That'll help us identify when we need to go back and revisit something because we'll have gotten so far afield from what we said we were trying to do.

And I would agree with that, it least it gives us leeway there.

We don't have to come back every single time we come about come above one of the margins that we were talking about.

Just to be clear, I'm I am talking about the totality of all the fees, not individual fees like I don't want to get into the weeds and start you know policying individual fees.

There's a lot of thought that goes into this, but just the idea of having some sort of range that we'd like to be in that is part of our policy, so we can like speak to our policy of what we intend to subsidize and so forth.

If we say language like, oh, we're just trying to be like other cities and fiscally responsible, and it just doesn't kind of come across the same way.

Um do you need more clarification that on that portion but I do think it'd be helpful if your council would like to have an overall cost recovery target as a percentage of the budget effectively.

I and then really a two-part question that if you would whether you're looking to have that incorporated now or is allow for more time for research to incorporate it as part of the next fee update when we come back as part of the budget a year from now, we could go either way on that.

Um, and just a couple additional thoughts.

I mean, it really depends on on how you want to go.

The way that fees have been procrafted and proposed at this point is more of a ground-up approach and looking at what the market is, looking at it by segment by different type of service that is provided, what the comparables are, where there are comparables, what the market's like where there is a market, and trying to be at a reasonable level point, and that's how we came up to roughly being in the 70 to 72 percent.

I also do understand that the point that uh council member DeVinny is making in terms of overall budget management.

Do we want to set a target for how much we're going to recover from fees as more of a budget policy?

If we go that approach, we'll likely have to do some reconciliation in the future because in order to receive to achieve a certain target, we may have to adjust some categories and some fees in order to get there.

It obviously depends what that target is, whether it's higher or lower than we're at currently.

That's obviously manageable, just a consideration.

So it is really more of do you want to continue with more of a grounds up approach in terms of setting the fees or have more of a top-down with having an overall recovery target as is a budget policy.

Let me try this one, because I think um Councilmember Definity has a good point, but I think we're at a point where we're not I I do support using the ground up because it gets into the granularity that is important to understand, but I also understand having an overall goal, and so maybe what we do this time around is say this has got us to this percentage of overall cost recovery, and the council feels comfortable that that is appropriate.

We are going to be working to clarify policy on that as we go through the budget process in time so the next fee study we can decide whether or not we have some other metric.

Use the ground up method, but then just checking just double checking the ground up to make sure we've gotten to where we want to be.

I but I think I'm hearing from staff that doing that right now would be difficult.

It's a worthy goal.

Not quite there yet.

Yeah, I mean I like that.

I I think I I don't think we want to say we aim for a hundred percent cost recovery except as specified below.

We're at 70 to 72 percent now, or no, we're at 60 something percent now, and we're going to 70 to 72 percent.

So it's going in the right direction.

Maybe we just want to embed that we want to be cognizant of what that percentage is and see it move more that way than that way.

I mean, it's I'm uh could write it more we could also ask staff for options when you know this comes back to us if that's not creating a big burden to investigate and so I I question what you're really looking at okay.

I've been through the budget process ten times in the 20 years I've been on the council, and I've seen budgets where by department you look at cost recovery.

And you have to start from that per perspective because you don't collect you cannot charge more for the leisure center in order to improve your cost recovery in the police department.

That's kind of smacks of being against state law.

And so you have you're running different businesses here.

It's almost like being in a shopping center and a shopping center with different stores, each doing in a different type of work, and they're going to have a different cost recovery and margins and markups and all of that.

So I I don't caution this, but I think we're thinking trying to think of it too simplistically.

And so maybe staff can come back to us because I'm not sure what you're trying to do in achieving this a subsidization percentage or a cost recovery percentage because you cannot charge more for parking tickets, which will only go under the parking fund anyway, and go to the courts.

Um, I mean, what what I hear, and I think it's a valid concern too, is that ongoing you know, budget um not crises, but kind of challenges, and recognizing that this area is one where you know theoretically for some fees we could charge 400 percent of what the cost of it is to us, and making sure that we're cognizant of it and recognizing that there is a subsidy that's happening there, a fairly sizable one, and that we're seeing it and touching it and feeling it every time that we're changing these fees and and recognizing or making that policy decision to allocate budget funds towards these fees that we're aware of it, we're not just blindly adopting it and that we have something codified that says are we measuring up to that standard or not?

I think we have to look at it at in these aggregate in these by department and ask for the just to take a look at it that way because we haven't looked at it that way in a long time, and it is an eye-opener.

So let me try again.

So it it it would be useful for all of us to know the percentage cost recovery in this one and how much of our general fund dollars we're putting towards um bringing these fees forward, and then have as a worthy goal to come forward with a more continue to use the bottom-up mode, but then say we want to have near full, you know, by different areas um something something magical.

So we if this is agreeable to to the full council, we can continue with we are as we are as proposed and come back if it's suitable with during this next budget cycle with more information about a cost recovery target, whether it's part of a fee policy or part of an overall budget balancing policy to look at how that may function.

I mean, it's you know what makes this difficult to an extent is this is completely discretionary.

You can set fees at zero percent or to a full hundred percent cost recovery, and is noted even in some fees higher than that if they're market-based.

So there isn't a lot of subjectivity here in setting these, even though we're trying to create suitable guidelines for charging and the way it's structured currently, it's at the service level, it's not even at the department level, it's at the program or the or the grouping of services that are available that we're setting those targets the way it's basically in those four buckets that we outline currently.

Uh but we could continue to study that if that's amenable to the group and come back uh within this next budget year.

Sure.

I think that I think that makes sense.

I do too, and I I think it's consistent with what we do, like the capital budget has a specified percentage.

I that got said before I was on council.

I'm not sure what it relates to.

I know something like two percent or but I think it belong it lives in the the overall budget as opposed to maybe this policy, and that we address it kind of holistically that way.

Yeah, I think that works for me.

It gets us broader recognition that as we put our budget together, here's how we are allocating our general fund.

We are subsidizing things at about this level.

Um, but that's I think that is where it belongs.

Okay.

Um all right, before we finish up this item, then um I'm going to give council member silva the floor to discuss the the final piece of this, which is do we want to include unincorporated Walnut Creek residents into the discount?

Um the uh we're just gonna be taking a straw vote on this one.

Um right now it seems like it's we're split on this, so uh again I'm leaning I'm leaning toward um Walnut Creek residents.

Oh, I'm sorry, Walnut Creek unincorporated residents as well, just because I don't think the cost is going to be that great, but the benefit is going to outweigh the risks.

But Councilmember Silva.

So my preference is to do all Walnut Creek residents in all four zip codes because these are individual services.

When you get to the groups, the soccer club, the rotary club, it's going to be assumed that they're walnut creek.

They're not going to be asking for rosters.

And if it's Concord Rotary, they're not going to get the local discount.

They're going to have to pay the standard rate.

Okay.

Um, that's my preference.

But I will live with it either way.

All right.

Because and the same and the we'll all say the same thing.

We live with it on the other.

All right.

Um I'm going to agree on this.

I think that we should just keep Walnut Creek residents, whether they're unincorporated or incorporated, together on this for discount.

It makes it easier.

People are going to feel more well more welcomed and uh not feel like the to use a bad phrase, the redheaded stepchild.

So um, you know, I I am going to continue to look for people that live in incorporated walnut creek getting the discount because the same challenge will happen with an Alamo Soccer Club that has 11 of the 20 kids are actually Walnut Creek residents.

And they say, wait a second, just because our address is not walnut creek, we have Walnut Creek kids.

So I and I can live with whatever, but I my preference is I like Incorporated.

Incorporated.

Incorporated.

All right.

Incorporated, correct?

All right.

That's it.

Unincorporated residents, we tried.

Can I can we finish a couple of comments?

Sure.

Um in the policy, it lists consistently under the police department a series of business licenses, and then it says bike licenses.

Can we not list bike licenses as if they're similar to a massage permit?

Yes, we can claim that.

Don't go there.

Um within the building department, when I was looking at the schedule, there's something doesn't look internal consistency of how it's being looked at.

But the housing affordable housing discount.

I think we should consider pressure preferential pricing as opposed to resident discount, but it's just a nicer way to say it.

And I think we need to be sure that we're by equity, we're also including treating like kind residents or like kind users or like kind groups the same.

That our best friend whose club has had a discount for 20 years, doesn't get continue to get the discount.

I mean we have to treat our customers equally.

Go back to what you just said.

You said preferential pricing versus resident discount.

Resident preferential pricing versus resident discount.

It's just it was it both terms or phrases were used.

I think preferential pricing pricing may be a nicer way of saying it.

Then wouldn't we have a problem of people that are not residents of the city of incorporated city of Walnut Creek saying why don't I get preferential pricing?

Does that just lend more questions?

It could.

It's used both ways.

I prefer I would prefer discount just because all right, it's just it makes it clean you get a discount on your resident since we're already going in that direction.

Okay.

Then we have to clean up wherever it says preferential pricing.

Yes, make sure it's consistent.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any more input needed on this one?

Anybody need a break?

Yes.

Okay, let's take a 10-minute break till 825.

Thank you.

All right.

Next on the agenda is a consideration titled Receive the Election Code 9212 report regarding the Walnut Creek Senior Housing Transit Village Initiative and consider two alternative resolutions to either place the initiative measure on the November General Election Ballot or adopt the initiative measure as proposed.

And before we turn it over to our assistant city manager, I'd like to ask our city attorney Steve Mattis just to give a quick overview of exactly what it is that we're looking at here.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

The the item before the city council this evening arises from the fact that the proponents of this initiative measure went out, uh they drafted a measure which involves uh amendments to the general plan, the north downtown specific plan, the zoning code, um, so various land use documents that the city has.

Um they went out, collected signatures, and as it turns out, they collect collected the required number of signatures.

And so when that happens under California law, the council has uh two choices that are available to them, and one's one permutation of that.

But the two choices are the council can either adopt the measure as it is drafted, so you cannot change it.

You simply adopt it as it's drafted, or alternatively, you can place the measure before the voters, and then the voters will determine whether it's approved or not, and that requires a simple majority vote.

The the slight differentiation to this issue is that that those elections code provisions also provide for what's called an elections code section 9212 report, which is part of your agenda tonight, and that's a report that the council can and did ask for, which talks about the measure and how it in how it may impact a series of fiscal and land use planning issues.

That's what state law requires, and the council also asked for some additional information.

So, in a larger sense, the council is going to hear the election code section 9212 report tonight.

Um you're gonna then decide whether or not you wish to um adopt the measure or place the measure on the ballot, and that's the overall or uh scheme of what will happen tonight.

There are if you do place the measure on the ballot, there are a number of issues that are associated with that that will be present in Charles' presentation, and that we can talk to the council about as we go through.

Thank you.

And with that, we invite uh assistant city manager Charles Ching forward to provide the presentation.

Thank you, Mary, and good evening, Mayor, members of City Council, Charles Ching, Assistant City Manager.

This city attorney pretty much summed up um the actions that are in front of City Council tonight.

So all of it is in relation to the Walnut Creek Transit Village Initiative that was submitted to see to the city uh in March of this year.

So the two actions that uh city council will be uh will be doing tonight are two things.

One is the receipt is received the elections code 9212 report regarding the initiative which was authorized by city council back in April, and the second would be to consider two alternative resolutions, like the city city attorney mentioned um either to put the measure on the ne November general election or to adopt the initiative measure as proposed.

So to do the presentation for the 9212 report, I want to uh bring up Jim Simon.

Jim is the president of RSG Solutions who is a consultant that the city hired to uh to provide the report.

Okay.

Good evening, Mayor.

Uh members of the city council, uh Jim Simon uh with RSG.

It's a pleasure to be with you this evening.

Um just to kind of a little bit of background.

I'll I'll just try to touch briefly because some of this has been mentioned already by two people now.

Uh so I'll I'll just touch on it just again.

But uh the uh elections code report has a window of time that it needs to be prepared within, and we are within that window of time.

It's a 30-day window from uh when the quarter certifies the initiative petition.

And so we're here tonight within that time frame to receive and discuss that report.

Um, as was mentioned, the uh initiative uh involves uh a couple of property or well, two two addresses, but about two what amounts to about 2.4 uh acres or so on um the northeast corner of North California Boulevard and Ignacio Valley Road.

It does several things.

It uh changes the general plan designation for that property from office to mixed-use residential emphasis.

Uh the initiative would also amend the uh north downtown specific plan by chaining the changing the office designation for the property to mixed use residential emphasis, and with uh third uh update the zoning code by creating a new mixed-use residential senior commercial district, M U R S C as it's called in the ordinance, um, and would which would also by extension amend um the mixed-use R district to allow for uh.6 FAR for commercial uses on the site.

The land use changes that are all underneath this would uh facilitate uh the allowance of a senior residential project that's been proposed uh in the ballot measure and or a senior mixed-use residential project, which include a commercial component.

Um these would both be by right with uh the passage of the ordinance, either by the council or if passed by the voters.

So, as I mentioned, uh the property in question uh is located here uh across from the BART station.

Um we mentioned where it's located already.

The current use of the site is a uh two-story uh office building, which is adjacent to other office buildings.

There's also a portion of a parking structure uh that'll need to be a lot line adjustment if and when this property ever does develop to and as well as demolition of those improvements to facilitate the construction.

Um the elections code report, um, as was mentioned, um city council on uh April 21st directed staff to uh proceed with the preparation of this report and include additional information as permitted by uh section 9212 of the elections code.

Um the basic requirements of the election code contents can include, uh don't always include, it really depends on the circumstances, the fiscal impact of the initiative, the internal consistency of uh the initiative with uh uh city plans and policies, uh the use of land and housing, uh funding for infrastructure, communities uh ability to attract a businesses, um attract and retain businesses and employment, um, impact of vacant parcels and developed areas designated for revitalization.

Um of the additional areas that the council had directed staff to include in the report include uh numerous ones which are contained in the draft that you have uh in front of you in the council packet.

Those include uh providing high-level environmental analysis, impacts of land use change, focusing on traffic and view corridor impacts, uh, address which discretionary or ministerial approvals would be required for future senior residential and commercial development at the property as outlined in the uh initiative.

Um address whether the initiative precludes a property, a project at the property from going through the city's normal entitlement process, um, address whether the initiative precludes a project from uh using the community benefits provisions that are contained within the north downtown uh specific plan.

Uh identify how the proposed north downtown specific plan and zoning uh element uh zoning code changes uh impact the city's available uh housing sites as I identified in the city's uh sixth round and current uh housing element, and whether potential senior residential units count towards the city's uh current uh cycle, RENA cycle.

Um in addition, the council asked that the uh report uh identify the inclusionary requirements and analyze the inclusionary housing requirements that is uh and analyze whether such units would be required to be constructed on site or whether a potential development off-site could be used to satisfy uh the requirement uh if the applicant or developer I should say were to uh pay uh in LU fees and build only make market rate units.

Uh address the impacts of measure A, which has uh height limits uh that the city has on code, um, and whether those height limits would be consistent or inconsistent with the uh the Northtown Town Specific Plan and Zoning Code, and uh analyze the potential demand for senior housing on the property, and finally identify whether initiative allows the applicant to develop a hundred percent residential project with no commercial use on that property.

So that is the uh scope of what's contained in the report.

Um let's talk a little bit about uh some of the assumptions that we used when we developed the report because this report looks primarily at fiscal impacts and some of these secondary issues.

And anytime you look at those things, you have to understand what are the typical what are the what's the presumed development that's anticipated.

Um the initiative does not require future development on the property, first and foremost.

It um uh or detail some any specific development plans.

So uh in communication with the uh developers of the property owner's attorney, um we developed some assumptions uh uh which involved a what we called a lower impact assumption, basically lower impact just simply based on upon the number of units.

That entails 225 senior units and no commercial space on the project, and a second scenario, which we called higher impact, which has 280 units and an additional 60,000 square feet of presumably ground floor uh commercial space.

Um just to summarize the findings of the report, which we'll get into uh and elaborate on um one by one throughout the presentation tonight.

Um the initiative would obviously change the site's land use designation in the general plan, north uh north downtown specific plan and the uh zoning code for the property.

Um there would be a one-time cost to the city of approximately 250,000 to implement the ordinance if adopted by the council or passed by the voters.

We'll talk about what that means in a moment.

Um there would be um uh the the initiative would also uh obviously potentially facilitate housing development on the site, which could advance the city's progress towards arena goals, most likely in a future arena cycle.

I'm assuming it's not going to get built in time for the current arena cycle.

Um and uh also add uh affordable housing units if those housing is were built on site as part of an inclusionary component of the project, or by payment of the NLU fee, which could by extension be used to build such units off-site.

In terms of the fiscal impacts, future development uh may increase the city's annual tax revenues depending on the scenario from anywhere from approximately 257,000 annually to $552,000 annually.

That gap is primarily driven by the commercial component of the project that is included in the high impact scenario, as we called it.

Uh future development may cost the city in terms of service costs anywhere from approximately 66,000 to 83,000, again, depending on the the size of the project in annual operating costs.

So overall it would be a net positive uh fiscal impact to the city on on ongoing recurring basis.

Um the project would also, by virtue of the fact that it becomes a residential project be uh would have uh available and staff will certainly elaborate on this later, um, access to the California density bonus law as any residential project would, um, which allows for uh standard development waivers in exchange for a developer agreeing to build affordable housing in the project.

Um, let's get into the details.

So, first and foremost, those one-time fiscal impacts.

Um this slide generally describes the types of impacts that we've uh discussed with staff and uh legal counsel.

Um they've been itemized here in the slides, so I won't read them to you.

But um in discussions with staff um based upon the staff's cost uh rate of about 250 dollars an hour, um, the the amount of staff that would be required to do the various uh activities to implement the uh implement it plus any legal fees and potentially consulting costs.

The city would be looking at approximately a one-time cost of 250,000 that would realize you know over the course of you know let's say several months or a year, however long it takes to get those activities done.

Next is um the ongoing fiscal impacts of the potential future development if the project were to if a project were to develop on the site after the initiative is either approved or passed by the voters.

And so I'll just go through each one of these.

Um so uh all of the assumptions you see here are assuming these are in 2026.

We obviously don't know when development may take place.

So if the development takes place in three years, you can presume those those figures would be higher.

If it's 30 years, it would be even higher.

Uh but these are in 2026, just so you have kind of a relative understanding of how much it is relative to your current budget.

So under the property tax, uh the office building represent uh there is an office building, as I mentioned on the current property.

It um is about 13% of the total office space that's on the larger parcel that this uh 2.4 acres lies.

And so we made some analysis to determine that um what portion of that assessed value that would come off the tax roll, uh, the land improvements for that portion of that building, and then the new improvements would be going onto the tax roll based upon uh construction costs for a senior project, a market rate senior project.

And we estimate that would be anywhere from about 123.8 million to 187 million, depending on the size and uh scale of the project.

The city's uh share of the 1% tax levy is about 9.4%, and so the city gets 9.4% of that uh amount.

And what we're showing here is the net increase over the current uh assessed value of the property.

In other words, the net new dollars here.

Similarly, uh the city gets uh oh, I love this one.

Property tax in lieu of motor vehicle license fees.

We love California how we move money around in the state.

Um so this one goes this is essentially another form of property taxes.

I will not bore you with the details.

I could bore you with the details, but I won't bore you with the details on how that's calculated.

But suffice to say for the last 20 years or so, the city's been getting uh some additional property tax through a scheme that um was engineered um by the legislature some years ago in lieu of getting VLF.

Yes, yes.

We just can't keep things simple in California.

Um sales tax.

So we we've we looked at sales tax a couple of different ways here.

First, obviously, when you bring new residents in, that's bringing new demand for um consumer uh new consumers into a market.

And so we looked and did an analysis at that, following some typical practices that we have on how we do those those analyses that's contained in our report.

Um we took into account you know what we expect to be the nature of the housing, the fact that people don't necessarily the economic development directors over here, so pardon me here.

Not everybody's gonna necessarily shop within the city.

We want everyone to shop within the city to be clear, so shout out to your economic development director.

But we assume some portion of that activity will not actually occur within the city limits.

And so uh the majority, which we assume to about 70%, would be captured within the city.

And um, and then basically did an extrapolation based upon their household income and what they would have disposable income to be spending on goods and services.

So that's how we did the residential spending component.

Um there is one uh I think it's a bakery that's on site today on the property.

So that bakery would obviously with the demolition of the property and the redevelopment would be um obviously you would lose that that revenue, and in its place, you would get anywhere between zero and um an additional um amount, which we've shown here on the slide, uh, for um uh for the uh new commercial space that's getting built, um the 60,000 square feet of commercial space.

Um we also have shown in brackets the service costs that I mentioned earlier.

Those service costs primarily associate are associated with um line items in the city's service uh in the budget, which are most prominently affected by you know incremental changes and small incremental changes in population.

This is obviously not a large change in population.

We're talking about 200 or 200 and 300 units is not a huge change, but we still you know uh our practice and we've do lots of these types of studies for uh not just election code reports but for development projects as well.

Um we typically always see an impact associated with law enforcement, calls for service, and things of that sort.

We've also um applied uh uh incremental uh change to some of the costs associated with the city's departments of arts and uh recreation as well, and you see that impact illustrated on the slide here.

Um the next few slides kind of go through some of the other impacts that were brought up uh by council um and and I'll just kind of run through these.

Um we see the land use and availability.

Obviously, this is the the impact on land use and housing.

That is obviously this is a single uh parcel change that we're making, so that what would be made.

So uh there's not a wholesale change on land use throughout the city.

Uh multifamily uh housing development certainly supports the city's progress towards meeting this arena obligations.

Um the funding for infrastructure, there's no impact obviously with the just passage of the initiative in and of itself, but if a development does take place, there would be um increased property tax and other revenues, tax revenues that uh may assist in the funding of infrastructure and ongoing service costs such as maintenance and those types of things.

Um the city uh again, the passage of the initiative doesn't change the business, uh the city's ability to uh tract or retain uh businesses.

Um the building is actually not particularly especially well occupied right now, which I think we've addressed in the report.

Um so the tenancy is rather low at the moment.

Um and but the mixed-use development obviously could bring in the opportunity to uh bring back some uh uh employment and uh business activity within the property.

Uh vacant parcels, obviously the property is not vacant, so there's really nothing to address on that.

Um then uh utilities and infrastructure, uh, the potential increase in demand for public services and uh utilities and other infrastructure was noted in our report.

Um air quality as is customary through any kind of construction activity.

Um there will be temporary air quality impacts from the demolition and retrofitting of the parking garage, which has been potentially anticipated and just general construction activity that that may be taking place in the site.

The same certainly would be true with noise, um the uh transportation and circulation uh obviously residential land uses generally reduce overall traffic volume uh as compared to commercial uses, so there was anticipation that would be an overall reduction in um uh vehicle miles traveled as a result of this project.

Uh the view shed uh and staff can certainly elaborate on this further, but the visual character of the property may change, obviously, with the form from going from an office to a uh you know anywhere from 220 to 280 unit apartment building.

Uh uh, but the existing um urban character of the area is suspected to remain generally the same as it's envisioned through the design guidelines of the general plan and the like.

Um with the amendments that are proposed.

Uh okay, consistency with the city's uh plans.

Um obviously the the measure is not consistent with the plans, but it does address uh and itemize several changes that we made to the general plan, uh specific plan uh and the like.

Um the uh there there may be the potential that um uh as as we will talk about a little bit later, um the uh project could be entitled to receiving a density bonus, and so some of those some of those changes would be care carried over there as well.

All right.

And then for the uh measure A is the city's uh limit on building height, um, which is maxes out at six stories and eighty-nine feet, uh and it's uh applicable citywide.

Uh the initiative does not amend or change that cap on this property, but of course, a density bonus um could be uh could be used by any residential applicant and and potentially could uh it could result in a concession in exchange for providing affordable units on site, whereby that 89 uh height limit could be um exceeded.

Uh we've illustrated the uh potential inclusionary units that could be provided based upon the city's inclusionary housing ordinance, uh depending on whether or not it's a 225 or 280 unit uh project and um you see the numbers of units there.

We haven't speculated on whether or not it's rental or ownership.

Uh we're presuming it's going to be a rental project, however.

Um if for some reason the uh developer opted not to build uh units on site, um they would be obligated to pay the uh in-lu fee, which is estimated between to be between 6.4 and 7.7 million dollars, which would go to the city's in lieu of housing fund, which could then be used for building or subsidizing affordable housing elsewhere in the city.

Um that's approximately 27 uh per square foot today.

Uh as was mentioned earlier, the downtown uh north downtown specific plan provides a community benefits program whereby uh applicants can um increase the development intensity in exchange for providing community benefits.

Um generally, and I I do a lot of community benefits work myself, but generally that those types of things work in commercial areas and not so well in residential areas because the density bonus law effectively is the community benefits program when it comes to doing uh that.

So uh it's likely that an applicant, and this is true in other places we've seen this, will likely look at the density bonus law and the more favorable uh concessions that they can get there versus uh what they can get out of the community benefits program that is embedded in the specific plan.

Um in terms of project entitlement and CEQA, um the future development will depend on the specific details of the project.

If it's consistent with the land use and zoning standards, and you know, as proposing initiative, the entitlement process may be very streamlined.

However, of course, there's no specific project that's been outlined in the initiative.

So there may be some elements of it that are going to be subject to CWAR review.

Um, but there's also the ability, given the nature of the project and location, for um multiple CEQA exemptions that could allow ministerial review process without even a sequence study being conducted.

And finally, uh there was the question about the demand for senior housing.

Um we evaluated uh the current inventory of housing that is um income restricted within the market and um within a two-mile radius of the site that may include properties outside the city limits.

Um and you see that you know about three percent of the total housing stock is presently restricted for households at ages uh 55 and older.

Uh and um however, there's a fair number of units that are in construction, so that would increase to about five percent.

So um uh there is a disproportionate increase going in in housing for towards seniors, although I think more broadly, I think it's generally known that the um lack of incentives for senior housing and other factors that have come into play have really created a huge demand for senior housing.

That's not just a local issue, it's something that the whole nation is facing.

Um that concludes uh my presentation on the report.

Uh I know there's other elements of this that staff was going to address, but I'm happy to answer any questions about the report itself that you may have.

All right.

Uh any questions on the report.

So, thank you very much.

And it was much easier following your presentation.

Can I have your slides as well as the written report?

Um, I would take you to your table of the um summary of the fiscal impacts, and I had two questions.

It may only be one, but two questions.

Since this is proposed to be senior housing, did your assumption of 44,500 per person in retail sales, or is that per household?

Per household.

Did that factor in that seniors spend less than my daughter does?

Yeah.

Um they this is a market rate project, so the the presumption is that the seniors will be paying market rate rent.

These are not income necessary, any fixed income or income restricted units.

Yes, but senior households have lower fixed incomes than so they have less, but they're not buying a lot of clothing for work.

They're not spending their discretionary spending is lower.

I agree with you on that, yes.

Does there does this 44,500 factor that in for these households since they uh well again?

Does their does this 44,500 factor that in for these households since they uh well again, I mean these are not these are a market rate apartments, so they are income restricted for seniors, but those seniors could be making even if they have fixed retirement incomes, they're not on I say fixed income, I'm talking about social security and government subsidy, period.

My mom.

So you know there may be um uh folks that are making quite a bit of money still or have resources or have accounts and things like that sort, and they're able to make that kind of spending.

So you're comfortable with what you've presented?

Yes.

All right, thank you.

Yeah.

And you might not be the person to ask this, but um on the density bonus and the that it could be used on this is there a difference in how the density bonus could be used with the the designation is senior housing compared to the current land use designation on the property.

Um I can let staff trust a lot.

Under the density bonus law, um senior housing projects themselves are entitled to a density bonus of 20 percent without providing any affordable housing.

If you layer on the city's inclusionary housing ordinance, and if they were to provide affordable units, they could actually stack density bonus on top of that, so you can get above 20 percent.

So by the fact that it is senior housing, they can have some density bonus.

Just senior housing, all market rate, they're entitled to 20 percent density bonus.

Okay, that makes sense to me.

Thank you.

Just on the is that factored into your higher density scenario?

The 20 that the stacking.

No, we did not factor that in.

So we we alluded to it in the report, but we did not yeah, address that in the quantify it.

So to the city attorney on the stacking, it's it's 20 percent is the base without providing any affordable, what what could it go?

What's the maximum?

It depends on what percentage.

So after the 20 percent, then you look at the the tables for density bonus law and depending on what percentage of either very low or low or whatever, they would be entitled to additional density bonus associated with that.

If if they're providing on-site affordable if they're providing it, plus the senior thank you, okay.

And then I'm not sure who's the correct one for this.

I'm trying to I've looked through the initiative measure a little bit, but under trying to understand what this new zoning code district, what the development regulations are in terms of density, FAR, and height.

I think that's I'm gonna defer to Amelia on this one.

Hello, everyone.

Maybe she and I'm the assistant director for community development, and I apologize.

I'm gonna request that you ask one more time.

Thank you.

Nice to meet you.

Welcome.

Uh just trying to get an understanding of this new zoning code because it doesn't currently exist and what the development regulations would be for this property under this code in terms of density, height, and FAR.

Sure thing.

So um, yes, in the actual initiative itself, it does propose um development standards.

And so um just one moment, I apologize.

I left all my papers behind me.

If you want to follow the same page.

So the development standards in the initiative uh start on the initiatives page 59.

And so under that, the density proposed is one dwelling unit per 425 square feet of net lot area.

Um and then it goes on to provide uh height regulation that matches with the downtown um north downtown specific plan, which is 89 feet in height.

And then of course, as mentioned in the report and in the presentation, um, should a project come forward requesting a density bonus, then there are waivers and concessions that could exceed the measure A height limitation.

And in the one to 425 helping, because I'm I'm more used to seeing it in expressed in terms of dwelling units per acre.

What does that translate into?

Sure.

So in the um in the 9212 report, they effectively take that amount and they provide the uh I believe it was 200.

Sorry, we'll get it exactly here.

Uh 225 to 235 units without a density bonus for the 2.4 acres.

Okay.

Not per acre then for the entire that's for the 2.4.

My apologies.

I don't have it per acre.

So it's it's is it similar then to the MUR uh density?

Okay.

Yes.

And if I may, it is.

They do they do define net lot area um differently in the initiative measure.

And it's so it's a more expansive depth definition of what counts as net lot area.

I see.

Okay.

Yeah, and I can expand on that slightly.

So um the initiative does propose revisions to the definition of net lot area specific to this new uh zoning designation where um the public right-a-ways, um, so future streets or any shared, you know, bike ped paths and private easements or any easements necessary for um the property would not be counted towards that acreage.

Okay.

And let's see, the other one was FARs, that's staying the same as under the current MUC.

So for the FAR, again, um the revisions come in the North Downtown specific plan.

Let me see.

Where uh the proposed plan is at uh 3.5 to 4.5 uh 3.5 base and 4.5 maximum uh FAR.

This is for the presidential that's right, and then the commercial is point in the typical uh MU it's 0.3 and in this one it's 0.6 on the commercial uh then the let's see.

The other question I had was about uh arena counting the units for arena purposes and with the just wanting confirmation that these senior units would be treated as multifamily units for our housing element.

That is correct upon construction.

So because this property is not site identified in our housing element, just the zoning alone would not count towards our arena figures, but should a project come forward be permitted and constructed, then those units would count towards our total arena figures.

Upon building permit issuance essentially.

Correct.

Okay.

Wait, a permit or construction?

Upon permit.

Okay.

I think that's all I have for now.

I have one more.

Since you're up there.

Yes.

Um the new land use designation, MURSC is only applicable on this particular parcel, correct?

The initiative only makes it applicable for the 2.4 acres of the initiative area.

However, should the initiative pass, then that zoning district does exist citywide, it wouldn't be applied to any parcels unless an applicant or property owner came forward requesting to make amendments to that zoning.

So if somebody else said, Oh, I've got a parcel and I want to build senior housing and applies for a zoning change to MURSC.

And when I was reading through the development standards, are those written in a way that it would be simple to apply it to another or and this has nothing to do with you guys' project.

I'm just trying to envision what's going to happen in the future.

It seems like it would be a little complicated to figure out how those standards apply to another area.

The development standards would work on any property if it had that zoning assigned to it.

Where you know, just overall land planning or or development planning could be challenging is whether those development standards are compatible with the surrounding area.

Okay.

Okay.

There's also language in the initiative that um creates uh certain exemptions that are specific to this 2.4 acre lot.

So the MUR zone is as much as Maile's indicating, the zone itself could be picked up and put somewhere else, but there are exceptions written into this initiative that apply just to this initi 2.4 acre initiative property.

Yeah, and I guess I'll add to that as well.

There are several aspects of this initiative that are revising the North Downtown specific plan, and of course, you know, any properties outside of the specific plan boundaries wouldn't, you know, those revisions wouldn't apply.

Okay.

So a couple other quick questions.

One is the 2.41 acres are not all one parcel and are not a hundred percent of each of the parcels from what I can tell looking at the map.

So in order for this zoning to take effect, they're going to have to apply for a change to their parcel map.

Ideally, the property lines would align with the zoning designation.

And Steve, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe it's I don't believe there are legal requirements for the property lines to match the process.

So you can have a parcel that has 50 feet on the west side of it zoned one way and the other.

I believe that it's you can.

And and there are it wouldn't necessarily require a parcel map either.

You could do a lot line adjustment.

So if you have if if you have a commonality of ownership and whatnot, you could do lot line adjustments to create new boundaries.

But ultimately, when this develops, it would be optimal that the parcels that are developed all be set parcels within that zoning district.

We do have other properties, even frankly, even this property right now has part of its measure A height limit is 89 and part of it is 35.

Yeah, I I've seen parcels where it's some one part A one, some the other.

But this is the first time I thought, oh, that's really weird.

Um then because this is now changing the specific plan.

If we were to amend the specific plan in the future for this parcel, we couldn't amend that specific plan without going back to the voters, correct?

I believe you wouldn't be able to amend the portions of the specific plan that this initiative would be revising without the voters.

Yeah, and I would supplement that that they've written into the initiative that if the property owner asks for an amendment, that could be processed and changed, but that would require the property owner to be asking for it or alternatively voter approval for the portions of this that are set forth in this initiative.

But the the converse is also true that if we needed to change the specific plan for other parcels other than the subject of this vote, we could still do the um I'm looking at page 13 of the initiative.

And there's a pair there's a sentence beneath the diagrams.

And I think this was what you might have been looking at as well.

It says that we're re-adopting that this initiative is re-adopting what this is in the diagram, and therefore is subject to the initiative.

And I read that, I would interpret that that somebody's going to argue that we have to go to the voters to amend the North Downtown Specific Plan, these two diagrams.

They they are they are very specific in the initiative about what is specifically being adopted as part of this versus what is included in it simply for in information purposes and not being readopted.

So for instance, the the diagrams that show the actual 2.4 acres are being adopted.

But to the extent that they show areas outside of the 2.4 acres, those are not being adopted at this time.

They're only in the initiative measure for ill illustrative purposes.

They're very specific in the measure about it.

The you know the proponents council can also speak to this issue, but the wording is is very specific in the in the measure and it's very focused.

So why are they using the word re the base the max FAR and max height for the initiative amendment in figure 3.1?

Okay, so that's where they're referring to the phrase in the Right.

And it's not just it's not just diagrams.

I mean the zoning rights that are that are created for this district on the 2.4 acre site are actually being adopted.

And so those would require either a request from the property owner for a change that the council could then approve or voter approval.

So it is it is um to be clear, it is tying the hands of future councils for the things that they are in fact adopting here.

So if we were to decide in 10 years, nothing had happened, and we were to decide to change the max far and the max height, the base FAR and base height for all of the parcels in the North Downtown specific plan, would we be precluded only from changing the the 2.4 acres would have to stay where they are today and we could just draw new ones around it, or would we have a problem with the whole part the whole block?

It's it's the it's the initial uh characterization.

So the only thing that is protected is the 2.4 acre, not the north downtown specific plan.

And even with the 2.4 acre, again, I would just remind the council that there is a provision that says that if the property owner requests it, so if you were, for instance, hypothetically doing an update to the north downtown specific plan and the property owner, whoever owned it at the time supported the change, okay, then you could go forward without it going back to the voter.

So upzoning is probably okay.

I would defer to the app or to the response on that issue.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yeah, that's that's okay.

It's it's kind of a complex elephant.

We're trying to make sure we understand it all.

Um so looking at the development standards, it appears that this idea of a primary and secondary frontage is and the fact that the setback is different on primary versus secondary is one of the bigger changes to the development standards.

For the setbacks, yes.

So the in the north downtown specific plan, there is language regarding uh front setbacks, and the initiative proposes that additional language is effectively added that defines primary and secondary frontages with different regulations for each.

Okay, and then the secondary frontage is California, the primary is ignatio.

I believe it's defined as the primary frontage is where the building entrances.

So we don't know which one.

To be determined, yes.

Okay.

Um then the same thing with the step back that comes out of the north downtown.

They are saying this the development sentence for this don't have a step back requirement.

Correct.

Okay.

All right.

I'm good.

Thanks.

Sorry.

I think thought of another one too.

So obviously this is the initiative, it's not an application, we don't have elevations or a site plan or anything like that.

But kind of are the scenarios that were run, are they realistic development scenarios under the development regulations that we discussed, or are there any deviations?

Uh no, they're they're realistic assumptions.

I mean, I it it's you know, in that 80 to 100 DU per acre, so that that's kind of a common prototype that's getting built today.

So it's it's not an uh it's a realistic assumption in terms of that.

So the the 280, which was scenario two, is a little higher than the 20 percent density bonus if I calculated it correctly.

Or maybe I'd have to go to the report to there's a reference to how we arrived at the 280 that we addressed in there, and I should point to where that is in the report.

Um so if you go to if you go to page um six and seven of the report, we that's how we get into the analysis on the units and um you get up to 282 units with a 20 percent density bonus.

We use 280 because I think that was consistent with what the applicants attorney had drafted, so that was a nominal difference, but otherwise that's what it comes from.

Okay, thank you.

So come on.

I'm not sure who's going to answer the question.

So the 2.4 acres doesn't seem like it was precisely located, but it are you able to determine exactly where the boundary lines are.

I won't call them parcel lines, but they're boundary lines of what will be applicable to the 2.4 acres and what will be outside the 2.4 acres?

Um well there are not there's not a specific you're correct, there is not specific uh boundaries set.

We were provided information, you know, through the uh through the initiative proponents about what they believe that to be, but it's not a site plan, so um we had to make some assumptions around what we understand it to generally be.

And tell me how big these units are that you're assuming at 80 to 100 per acre.

How how big the units are in terms of square footage, you mean or um I mean is it the size of my kitchen or is it no no um I think we addressed that in the report too.

I want to point you to where that is.

Um I think we were saying it was uh I want to say 290,000 to 350,000 square feet of gross building area, depending on the two scenarios that we were looking at.

So I'd have to do the math in my head to how many average square footage on each unit, but um though those are not small units, so those are not micro units.

So they're not all dorm rooms.

No, no.

Okay.

The um so what section of the initiative, where in the initiative does it say that this is limited to senior housing?

There's a lot of language about will allow for, will encourage, will facilitate.

But are they limited to senior housing if this initiative passes?

Sure.

So again, um in the initiative looking at the proposed development regulations, um, or excuse me, the land use uh regulations table.

Let's see here.

It is page 40.

It begins on page sorry 47.

Um so the land use table identifies that multifamily residential, residential care home, supportive housing, and transitional housing and congregate living uh facility and group residential.

So those are all the different residential classifications that would be permitted by right.

If you look um at the kind of second column that's next to all those land uses, there is a use regulation.

There's an item called L22.

When you go to L22 on page 56, it states that uses that allow persons to reside in the use, so residential uses I think is an easier way to state that, are limited to those serving primarily as persons 55 years of age or older.

Um so I would I mean to me personally, I I don't think that's only 55 years of age or older since the word primarily persons there is written.

But um, you know, I I'm sure we could address that with the um proponent as well.

So what happens, what would be the process?

This might be a lawyer question.

If 10 years from now, it doesn't look like senior housing is going to be marketable, and they decide they just want to make it regular housing, no no no age restrictions.

What would be the process required if this initiative passes?

We we don't have an application before us, but if if if you take the hypothetical that they have invoke the senior um housing the the senior housing designation for purposes of density bonus, then there would be deed restrictions on the property that would associate with that to implement the this you know to give them the benefit of of the density bonus provisions.

Um so that would be the that would likely be the mechanism that we would use to enforce that and if in 10 years it wasn't working as a senior housing development, they we would still be able to enforce that, or they would have to come back in and try to amend that senior housing deed restriction that they would have on the property.

So what if it happens before um building?

Can they come in and ask us to change our minds?

What's the process?

Well, they're voter approved.

If they don't seek any density bonus at all, then the zoning controls that it needs to be senior housing.

That's the approved use is that's the district that it's in.

Um but to be clear, the changes to the North Downtown Specific Plan and the general plan specifically say only senior housing.

It's the zoning that says that.

So what if they came in and they said they wanted a zoning change to allow them to not build senior housing?

Would that well right now that would require an amendment to the zoning for this property?

So they would have to come back to the council for a discretionary amendment.

The initiative allows them to make those kinds of requests, but they wouldn't have that right.

They would it would it would require discretionary action by the council.

Does that mean the council at that time would also, if that was to be asked, would they have the right to change the development standards as part of that discussion?

Because the building isn't there.

I'm saying that's Yeah.

Um that would be that would be harder because the initiative is locking in a number of the other requirements.

And so if they're voluntarily asking for it and the council is voluntarily agreeing to it, yes, they could make those changes.

But if the council just wanted to impose it upon them, then the council would be bound to the initiative provisions that were previously adopted.

So for instance, if you want to change the FAR or something like that, and the applicant didn't agree with it, then that then you would be more restricted.

You would be restricted, actually.

But they would be restricted from changing to they couldn't just voluntarily change it.

If they voluntarily change the development standards, assuming they don't go through another initiative measure, okay, they would have to come back to the city council for that.

Come back to the through the planning process ultimately to the city council because it would be a legislative action.

So let me make sure I've got this, because I think the this really helps with one.

Sorry.

Is that okay?

No, go ahead.

No, go ahead.

Um the way the development standards are written in the initiative, they appear to me to go with the MURSC designation.

Correct.

If they came in to the city in the future and said we want to switch to MUR or MUC without the SC on there, we would have an opportunity as the city to say, or whoever is on council, say yes we agree or yes we disagree, and then if they switch that to a different designation, those development standards in the initiative, would they still apply?

Because they're associated with that zoning designation.

The if the council, if they came in, whoever the property owner is at the time comes in and makes a voluntary request to change the zoning to just MUR, if you will, and the council agrees to it, then you would change it.

And the M and the senior district would no longer apply, you would have just MUR there.

But if the if a city council in the future wanted to change it on its own collision, you cannot do that.

Okay.

Yeah.

That's what I thought.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

And in regards to the I should be clear, that cannot be done without voter approval.

Yeah.

It can be done with voter approval.

In regards to the 55, um, we just talked about primarily that word.

But what what does that mean?

Does that mean greater than 50 percent?

What what does it mean?

If you don't invoke a density bonus law that deed restricts is it really that's uh so it would it would track essentially um you would follow the wording of the ordinance itself and what uh Maile has put up on the screen right now, so you would apply that from its reasonable interpretation of what primarily means more than 50 percent.

Um you would think of it uh uh from my experience, what you've seen in senior housing uh complexes before is sometimes you have you know, the primary residents in the units are seniors or people over 55, but they may have caretakers and whatnot who are under 55 who live with them on a permanent basis.

And so if if the primary residents, the primary residents in the in the facility are over 55 years, that would be that would be what would be the standard.

I would say also if they do invoke density bonus, then you'll have tighter language than what's here because you'll have a deed restriction on the property, which would set out exactly what that means, and we would probably follow that you know the state density bonus law standards and definitions for what that means.

Okay, and then um we we've talked uh a bit about the changes to the north downtown specific plan, but just to clarify, there are only changes to allow this new designation.

We're not changing anything that applies to the rest of the North Towntown, right?

That is correct.

So the um proposed revisions to the specific plan are specific to this property.

Yeah.

Um however, you know, again, if for some reason another property within the specific plan also got this designation, then those uh revised changes would apply to that property as well.

Okay.

And then earlier, and we were talking about the size of the units potentially, and um I heard two different things.

So I heard one of there would be approximately um one unit per 425 feet, which sounds fairly small to me.

But then I heard you say also that um that they wouldn't be that small, and so were you using the same calculations the two of you when you were discussing the size of the units.

Uh let's see, when I get to the part of the report where we address that, so I can point you to that.

Um it's uh the the 425 square feet is the one residential unit per per um net developable area is that's this square footage.

Um I think the total square footage of the building area um can be very different, however, so you you have different things going on.

So you have um under, for example, a density bonus, you could have the 280 units, 350,000 square foot building allowed.

So we've assumed you know a 350,000 square foot building that's 280 units in it.

So that's how we develop the analysis based upon that.

And that includes amenities.

And public areas and things of that sort.

So whether the actual units are as small as 425 square feet, I think would be probably a bit of a stretch.

But um because the amenities are probably not taking up half or more of the building.

So thank you.

So I have one last series of questions.

Okay.

The North Downtown Specific Plan, which uh former council member member Lowella Haskew and I were the two council representatives on that committee, and of course um planning commissioners Darling and Francois were also privy to this.

A big focus was actually mobility, and um there was a large tranche money that came from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the form of a grant to improve mobility.

And there was a lot of discussion about setbacks in order to allow for the bike ped access, and now this is two critical areas, North California and Ignatio Valley Road that have actual diagrams that specify the setbacks, etc.

Is this being impacted by that?

I can't tell because the they didn't change the drawings, they just put the drawings in the initiative and they said nothing changes, but yet there's language that makes me think it might be changing.

So can you clarify what's happening with the proposed North California cross section, which is 5.6 B in the specific plan and 5.10 B, which is the Ignatio Valley Road.

Yes.

So this uh this is not quite the figures that you just mentioned, but just very quickly, this comes out of the North Downtown Specific Plan Um, where the green lines are identifying, and I'm I wish is this how this works?

Oh, sorry, that's exciting for me.

So that's the project site or the initiative site, I should say, no project.

And so that lighter green, and this is really teeny tiny, so I did blow it up, um, is showing as moderate five foot to fifteen foot setbacks.

So that is in the specific plan now, and there is no proposals to change those dimensions.

However, on the um right hand side, there is new language to one of the design standard guidelines, whereas we talked discussed earlier, we are identifying the front setback in a different way.

Or the initiative is identifying the front setback in a different way.

They're identifying it based off of a primary farnage and a secondary frontage.

Um but again, even here you'll see that the primary frontage, whichever one that might be with the building entrance, is still a five foot to 15 foot setback, and then the secondary frontage is still a minimum of five feet.

There is no maximum, however, with the proposed initiative language.

So what happens to Ignatio Valley Road in North California?

Yeah, no, wonderful.

Sorry, I want to lay a little base there.

I just um I mean there were many, many discussions on these diagrams.

Sure things.

So again, assuming uh a future development is still maintaining that five to fifteen foot setback, the building setback is still the same on the screen now, is out of the specific plan, the future um proposed cross section for North California, where we are hoping to add shared use paths, so adding up head and bike path, um, that's kind of identified in the blue and between the trees there.

Um with this initiative, there is a revision to propose a three-foot public right-of-way dedication essentially maximum, if you will, for those improvements.

Um, I'm sorry, I thought I had one more slide.

Um, and then if you read a little farther, it's bold, but it's not colored, and it would be eight foot on um Ignacio Valley Road.

So the proposal from the initiative identifies that this is still consistent with the plans proposed in the North Downtown Specific Plan.

It's effectively stating that there wouldn't be any impacts.

I would just add that, you know, as cities get closer to actually designing and constructing and you know, engineering the streets, sometimes those amounts do change, right?

Is three feet really gonna be enough when we put pen to paper?

You know, I couldn't fully commit to that.

I you know, I'd probably want to defer to a civil engineer.

Um, but the language is hoping to stay within the figures proposed and not impact the mobility plan within the specific plan.

So where the diagram says five to fifteen foot setback that hatched pink they're saying it would be three.

So they're still going to meet the five to fifteen foot setback, but they would only be dedicating uh three feet of right-of-way to the city for future build out.

Okay, at least along North California, eight feet along Ignacio Valley Road.

All right, thank you.

Okay, on to the next chapter.

All right.

Now so on to the next portion of this item, which is uh where council decides on two options regarding the proposed initiative.

The first option would be to place the initiative measure on the November ballot, um, and if desired, specifying procedures and processes related to ballot arguments opposing the measure, which will entail designating two city councils to do so.

Or alternative, alternatively, the city council may decide to just adopt the measure as proposed without alteration.

So before council decides, I wanted to share some information and updates on a proposed measure.

So you know, the the uh information on the signature counts on May 4th, the proponents uh filed the petitions with the city clerk um shortly thereafter.

The city clerk completed its uh initial review uh of the petitions and sent the petitions to the the county to conduct their verification process.

And on June 26, the the county did conclude that um there were 5,000 valid signatures, which was more than the 4,987 that was required to uh put a measure on the ballot.

Um in the event of a measure, uh what you see on screen right now is what the ballot language will look like.

Um I'll not read the whole thing, um, but this is what the uh the voters will see on the on the ballots come November your microphones off.

This is different than what this was updated from what we had in the agenda packet.

I'm looking at Steve.

It should be I think it's drawn directly from the same one.

Yeah, this is the same.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

And then in terms of ballot arguments, this is something that is not required.

Um, but if if city council desires, city council may authorize uh council members to submit uh ballot arguments opposing the measure because this is a uh citizen initiated measure.

Um city council is limited to um arguments opposing the measure.

Um in the event the city council does decide to put what uh put an opposition, um the arguments will be printed uh in the voter information guide.

So timeline for placing the initiative on the ballot um August 7th is the deadline to for council to adopt a resolution and submit the ballot measure to the county uh shortly thereafter, August 19th, uh the city clerk will file preliminary arguments with the county in the same day the city attorney will prepare and submit an impartial analysis uh directed by the city council.

Um August 24th is when rebuttal arguments must be filed, and then November 3rd will be election day.

And before I bring it back to City Council for City Council action, I want to hand it back to the city attorney to talk about some details around the item.

Yeah, Mayor and Council, I wanted to bring one item to the council's attention that relates to this measure.

The Elections Code Section 9280 provides that with a ballot measure, as we're all familiar with when we read ballots, you typically have the voter pamphlet, for instance, that has the full text of a measure.

Instead, under elections code section 9280, the city can direct that it's not going to do that, choose, if you will, elect.

And then the city attorney's impartial analysis has to have very specific wording that includes a statement that a copy of the measure is available to be sent to people just simply upon request of the city clerk.

And we wanted to raise that issue.

Right now, the resolution that is before you assumes that we would print the full uh full ballot measure, which is all 60 plus pages of it.

Um the council should be aware that when the election costs are calculated and identified to the city, they're really broken into two parts, and I would ask the city clerk to supplement this if there's anything that I leave out.

But there is a basic per voter charge that all cities are imposed for elections, and then there are direct costs associated with an election that are costs that are charged to the city itself.

And so, for instance, if you're thinking about the publication cost of this very long ballot measure as well as the translation cost, because the measure will have to be translated into another at least one other language, um, those are costs that the city would incur.

And the elections code allows a process where if that full measure is not included in the uh ballot pamphlet, the sample ballot, if you will, the ballot measure, then there can be a statement in the city attorney's impartial analysis that tells a voter how to get a copy of it, and they can be provided of a they'll provide a copy at no charge.

And so we just wanted to bring that to the council's attention because the resolution that's before you tonight assumes that the full ballot measure, the full initiative measure will be included in the ballot materials.

We do have some alternative language that could amend uh section two of the resolution if the council wanted to consider this issue further.

And that wasn't reference, this wasn't referenced in your staff report, but we wanted to bring it to your attention because there are cost implications associated with which which direction you go, assuming you place it on the ballot.

So I I have a question then.

Um so what is the range of cost to the city if this were to go on to the ballot?

Low to high.

I don't think we have a specific estimate right now, do we, Susie?

No, I mean the county had estimated 30 to 35,000, but I don't think they were taking into account the 65 pages translated into also Spanish and okay.

And um, just where you were talking about then, Charles, can local citizens file a ballot argument?

I would defer to Steve and that's the case.

Yes.

Um the the elections code allow a number of um uh individuals, entities, if you will, associations to file them, and then the elections code sets a priority, and uh as Charles was indicating on a citizen-sponsored initiative.

If the proponents file a ballot argument in favor, they're the likely entity that would do that, their ballot argument gets first priority before the argument in favor.

Similarly, if the council files a ballot argument against, and then some other groups file a ballot argument against, the council's ballot argument would be the one that would be included as the uh ballot argument against it.

And I want to be very clear, Charles was very clear about this.

The council is under no obligation to file a ballot argument under either way.

This is within your discretion.

If you wish to do it, you can.

If you don't want to be involved in the ballot argument process, you can simply tell us that and we'll pull that language out of the out of the resolution, assuming you're gonna place this measure on the ballot.

But then if we do not file a ballot argument, then a citizen still could.

A citizen, and again, there's a priority.

I think there are associations first and then the individuals.

So there are there's a priority listing that the city clerk has to follow when she's selecting the ballot arguments.

So I have a quick question on ballot arguments for and against.

So could the city elect to file an argument?

It would have to be an argument against the measure, but really just to ex to really crystallize what this does compared to the normal process.

The um I'm going to answer that and then expand a little bit.

So the if the council were to write a ballot argument that's a ballot argument against, they can write really anything that they want to about the measure.

So you can you can uh you can formulate what you want to say in whatever manner you think best communicates to the citizens.

Um there will be an impartial analysis.

The council's likely going to direct that if you place the measure on the ballot.

The impartial analysis has to be just that.

It has to be an impartial analysis, it's 500 words, and it's written by the city attorney.

It it has to impartially describe the measure.

So and that will be in the ballot packet, regardless of whether the full measure is in the ballot.

Um so what you're what you what you would be thinking about is the ballot packet includes the arguments in favor, arguments against if there are any of either one of those, the rebuttals to both of those, the impartial analysis, and then the last thing is the measure itself, if you choose to put the measure in so that the voters get the entire measure in their voter pamphlet.

So I have a question.

To add on to.

So let's say the council chooses not to write an argument against.

Does that preclude any of the five of us deciding to be part of somebody else's argument against it does not?

The difference is that if the council does not designate that they're going to doesn't authorize some grouping of the council to write the ballot argument against, then that wouldn't be given the priority.

Okay.

So it's not simply that a council member has signed on to the ballot argument.

It's it's if the council authorizes a ballot argument, but uh no council member would be prohibited.

If if the council elects not to do anything, then it would just uh council member could sign if they wanted to.

The um initiative, you know, the 60-page initiative, and there's discussion of whether we would distribute that with the voting material.

You said if we don't, then we would distribute language that tells the voter how to obtain the nih the initiative if they want it.

I know there's the 500, the 500-word impartial analysis.

Um so that's there, but if um we were to opt not to send out the entire initiative, is there a summary version of that, or is there something besides the full 60 pages?

And I'm thinking this isn't the first time there's been an initiative that's so long it's beyond the common person's consumption.

So how is something like that correctly?

Correct.

So that the state law that allows this option to not include the full measure, specifically requires that the city attorney's impartial analysis say that the above statement, so the impartial analysis is an impartial analysis of ordinance or measure X, whatever it is.

If you desire a copy of the ordinance or measure, please call the elections official at and we put the city clerk's telephone number in there, and a copy will be mailed to you at no cost to you.

Okay, so there's no summary of it.

There isn't a summary, but from a practical standpoint, the impartial analysis is a summary.

So let me can I add on to your question?

Yeah, and and I'm not clear, I'm not quite clear yet, but there isn't there isn't so if you're if if I may, pardon me, it's member for interrupting.

Um there's not a separate summary that is written in the ballot materials.

So the only thing that would be in the ballot materials are the impartial analysis, the arguments and for or against, and whether or not you include the full measure.

Okay.

So are we and then is mailing it to you the only option, or is it posted on a website that people have access to?

There's nothing stopping the city from posting it on a website and making it available that way, but the the elections code is written that it would be mailed to them.

Okay.

But the city can do more outreach than that if they want to, and then the proponents can do more outreach too.

Are we allowed to have you summarize further than 500 words in what is not in the ballot, but the council's allowed to direct me to write anything you want me to write, but what can be published is limited to 500 versions?

But not published.

I mean, and can that be attached to the 65 pages navigational tool?

No.

So you're supposed to present the measure as it's written to the voters.

The council can't change that in any way and the other things that I've talked about, the impartial analysis and the ballot arguments.

The ballot arguments, even though they're even more limited in words than the impartial analysis, are intended to allow the proponents on both sides to make their arguments about what it means and what the impact is, however they wish to characterize this.

Are you we dealing with that portion?

Yeah.

So that concludes my presentation, but I want to bring back this slide up to show City Council the two options that's available to you.

Um do you want to open up public comment?

Yeah, I do, but I was I was waiting for these two options to come up.

Well those options are mounty album over downtown.

No, I understand, but okay all right.

So now let's open it up to public comment.

If there's anybody from the uh that's here in the chamber that would like to speak, come on up.

You've got uh uh well, I guess actually in the um developers instance you have 10 minutes, I believe, um on this one since you're representing that.

Uh if we've got anybody else, they will get two minutes.

Do we have anybody online?

No.

So all right, the floor is yours.

Uh Mayor Wilk and uh Mayor Pro Tem Francois and City Council.

I'm Mark Hall.

I'm here tonight in my capacity as the chairman of the campaign committee that has been pushing this initiative forward.

And I'm also the uh principal uh owner of the Ignatio Center site here in Walnut Creek, which is uh I think most people are aware it's the it's the largest single office complex uh in the city of Walnut Creek, uh just across the street from the Walnut Creek Bart Station.

Um I just have a few comments, and then uh there's a lot of technical questions here that uh are great.

You're digging into the detail.

And we have uh our our land use lawyer here, Cecily Barclay with Perkins Coe, who is uh instrumental in drafting this, and uh frankly understands this I think probably better than anybody with the possible exception of Steve.

And uh so she's available to answer those technical type of questions.

Uh before I make my comments, I I just want to also thank uh Steve and Susie uh for their assistance over the last few months in helping us navigate this process.

Uh this is a first time uh for me for our company and running an entitlement of this type.

Uh uh California is an interesting place, always changing.

And uh it uh has opened uh various uh uh avenues uh to proceed uh uh differently on a project approval than we have typically done in years past.

And as a property owner, we've just simply been evaluating and looking at our alternatives and trying to figure out what makes the most sense uh from a cost from a timing uh standpoint to move our objectives forward.

Um I'd I'd like to just make a uh a simple comment here.

Um there's been a lot of discussion around the impacts, and I would say that those impacts are very, very narrowly uh analyzed on this little 2.4 acre parcel of a larger 6.8 acre block in total, uh the block of which has uh three significant office complexes that total about 550,000 square feet.

I don't think it's any surprise to anybody that the office market in Walnut Creek coming out of the pandemic has suffered uh a major debilitating blow.

Uh we purchased this property uh just over a year ago, and we bought it uh from uh partnership of uh perhaps the largest and most prestigious office building owner in the country, together with uh one of the top three uh investment funds on the entire planet that that opened that own this property.

And and we bought it for you know roughly 40 cents on the dollar of their cost.

And this is not inconsistent with uh any major building uh sales that are changing hands right now.

So property taxes are dropping under reassessments across the board right now in a significant way.

And I would just point out that our project is not just a senior project, it's a way for us to figure out how do we benefit our entire block, and in so doing, I believe benefit the entire north downtown uh specific plan area of Walnut Creek, particularly around the BARC station, all of these office complexes.

The plaza and Grower Square, located on the south side of town, closer to the retail district, closer to the pedestrian retail area, uh commands rents that are about a dollar and a half a square foot uh per month higher than the properties that are up at the Walnut Creek Barch Station.

And these properties that are closer into the southern side of town are virtually full, whereas the entire Walnut Creek Bart area is about 30% vacant uh across the board.

Now that dollar and a half is a gross rent.

By the time you subtract the operating expenses, it translates into about 40% net rent that is going to support the value of the building less at the BART station.

And this is a location that is a primary transit-oriented district that has access to BART, that has better access to the freeways, but yet it commands rents at roughly uh sixty cents on the dollar net uh compared to what is uh the market generates in the south side of town where there's amenities, where there is a place to walk to have lunch, uh to shop a little bit.

And we don't have that in the north downtown area.

We we've never really had that.

And the Waymark project has made an effort, but the truth is, in my opinion, and I'm a guy that's developed a lot of shopping centers over the years, that's not really very good retail space.

That's similar to what the county did up at the Pleasant Hill Bart Station.

There is no good surface convenience parking for that retail that attracts the best retailers there.

We have a 750-stall parking garage on this block that is five stories tall.

And what I'm trying to do is figure out how do I feasibly push that underground.

How do I get that underground?

If I can get that parking garage underground, I improve the marketability of a whole lot of office space in that complex that looks directly into a five-story concrete parking garage on roughly half of the floor plate of the office buildings there on the inter on the interior side of the block.

I also open up the middle of that block and allow a large area that can be used for an internal street through the block and and a lot of surface parking in that area to help support retail and commercial space.

Sounds like I'm developing a retail project as opposed to a senior housing.

Well, no, it's senior housing.

That's the that's the economics that drive this whole thing that make this all possible.

But if we can get a mixed-use project here that works really well, this is going to be really important for the the whole north downtown area to support values for all of those office buildings that you know are right across the street for amenities for the office space to make it a little bit more like the south side of Walnut Creek, built bring those values back, get those property tax revenues up.

That hasn't been analyzed in this impact analysis as to what this does to the entire local economy if we can get this project going forward.

So tonight, you know, is a first step, either either way you go, whether you put it on the ballot or whether you adopt it.

I don't know if that's even got a discussion, probably not.

But uh it's a first step, and we're hopeful that uh eventually uh we'll get there.

And uh so anyway, that's that's the extent of my comments.

If you have technical questions, we heard a lot of things.

We we were over here listening and thinking, uh that's that's a little off.

That's that's not quite right, and we could you know comment on some of that if you want, but uh it's up to you.

And as I say, Sicily's here to make comments.

Um we just want to make sure we don't any other public comment here.

Nobody else is online.

So we will then bring it back to council.

We can ask any questions of staff, any questions of the uh initiative group and make comments.

Mayor, I think it would be appropriate to have the proponents correct whatever they think.

Give them another 10 minutes to answer the questions that they don't think we have the technical answers.

I I agree that was going to be my question.

If there you think there are technical things that that we miss that didn't uh get right or didn't interpret correctly that you think are important to share those with us.

But let's not ask the questions again.

Let's let's just let them go ahead and give us the answers.

What do you think?

That's why yeah, we don't even need to have that on the clock.

Um good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Council members and staff.

Uh my name is Cecily Barclay, and I am the land use attorney uh and also a represent of uh the landowner, but also representative of the campaign committee here this evening.

And I don't want to over I actually I appreciated Mark's comment when he said, well, with the exception of Steve, there might not be anybody else in the room who knows this initiative as well as Steve does, because I think as the conversations continued, even though we were doing a little bit of, oh, what about this, what about that?

It more information came out as you guys discussed it.

So I don't think we have a lot to correct.

I actually think uh we were able to get to the the bottom of it.

There were little things like at some point um Mr.

Simon said uh you get you know the 20 percent affordable housing.

We don't we get the 20 percent because it's senior housing.

But I think as time went on, it was clear that we don't have affordable, we don't have to have affordable housing to get the 20 percent density bonus.

Um the uh you know the the zoning.

I mean I do I do agree as it all came out that we basically took the MUR zone and incorporated those to the property here, but we've restricted it in the L22 note to seniors only and primarily seniors.

Again, I think Mr.

Mattis explained aptly that under state law there's certain protections for senior housing under the density bonus law, senior housing is defined a certain way, and there are these words like primary.

I actually think that there are places in the code that talk about 80 percent.

I think it depends how it would get applied to the specific site, but primarily seniors means it's a senior community, but there may be a caretaker or a surviving spouse uh who may be able to live there.

Um, but those should be the exceptions to not the rule.

And um again, I I think that like with the bike plan, we're not trying to modify the bike plan.

We were or some of those street sections, they're in there, and then the only thing added is to say, and they apply to the zoning code.

So sometimes we're just taking what was already in the specific plan, but making it clear that those specific plan diagrams, just as the city wrote them, the only thing being added on those pages are language that says, and this applies uh to the M U R S C zone.

So I don't I don't know if I actually have 400.

Oh, just okay, just get correct, thank you.

So I just to help be really clear about this.

So the way the city's MUR zone works, even without us, just right now, it there's actually one unit per 425 net square feet.

That's of the land.

So you take a 2.4 acre parcel, which has 43,560, I think.

But it's about a hundred thousand square feet for two point four acres.

So if you have uh well, I'm not gonna do I'm gonna take that comment out for a second and just say if you've got uh hundred a hundred thousand square feet, you get one unit per 425.

That's not gonna work for me either.

Divide it by 425, you're gonna get about 280 units.

Excuse me, 230.

Sorry.

But what I wanted to say is you've got it's the net number though.

That's why you're seeing some of these ranges.

Is it 225 or is it 235?

Because we have to take out any of the public easements or frontages that can't be calculated in the net number.

So that's why you saw in Jim's Simon's presentation, the low was between 225 and 235, because we're you're not really sure, but he used the low of the 225, and then the high is actually 235 plus 20 percent.

So uh what RSG was doing is kind of taking the lowest of the low and the highest of the high and using the two twenty-five to the two eighty.

Um but if you actually took two twenty-five and you added twenty percent, that wouldn't get you to two eighty because we're having to also use some variation in what the net developable area is, which we won't actually know until a project comes forward, and we work with the city on exactly where the set marks are and the street lines and get you know the ALTA detailed um surveys out there.

Um jump in and ask you a quick question.

I just want to make sure I've got this.

So it when you're talking about the 425, that's of the lot itself.

Yes, so that's units, the the units, however, are bigger.

They could because they're all you could actually want them there's no limit on how big a unit can be.

And so the density that we're at is about how much.

Well, you start with the square footage that gets you one unit for every 425 square feet, and two and that happens to be 235 units.

Yeah.

You also have a floor area ratio that limits how much gross density you can put on there.

So and then you've also got height limits.

Now, if we do a density bonus we have, we don't have the height limits, and you might not have as much of an FAR unit, you could end up with really big units.

This assumption that has been done in this analysis assumes about a thousand square feet as I more or less.

Those are kind of the units, which are not small units, by the way.

That's a healthy size unit.

Some of the things that we're doing.

Thank you.

I didn't mean to interrupt.

I just wanted to I we're at a moment.

Yeah.

So as a practical matter, we don't know that until we do our market analysis until we design the project.

The 425 is the is what you divide into the land square footage to get the number of units to apply the density bonus to.

Yeah.

And then the FAR ultimately governs the scale of the building.

Uh but that's basically an envelope within which you got room to size your units.

And the reality is as we do our market analysis, we're gonna have a lot of different size units.

There'll be a unit mix that will target different parts of the market.

So that's that's coming down the road.

Yeah.

The coming attractions?

Is that what you're yeah?

So my important question to you is now does that make does that answer the question of the difference between the unit count and the what the one per 425 means?

Feel good about that.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

What we're here for any other questions that you might have.

But I I just want to echo Mark Hall's comments that we really appreciate the technical detail uh that you have all looked at and staff's ability, uh, both Miley and Mr.

Simon and Steve Mattis to answer the questions.

I had one.

Yeah.

Thank you for the presentation.

Thank you for all the work that went into this.

So council member Silva asked this question earlier.

I just want confirmation in terms of intent on the initiative language on page 23, then where we're dealing with the FAR table, you're recreating it from the north downtown specific plan and saying it's readopted for the initiative amendment area.

And and it's the proponent's intent that that applies to the initiative amendment area, meaning it can't be amended as to the initiative amendment area without the vote of the people, but we can change that as to other areas that are not in the initiative amendment area without a vote of the people.

That that is exactly the intent.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

You do.

And I'm the attorney for the campaign committee and the proponents.

And uh my question is for council member Silva.

Did that answer your question about the bike sidewalk area that you expressed concern because you went through that process, so you you know it well.

You were concerned that it would compromise that walkability, the bikeability that had been planned for.

Did that answer your question about preserving that?

Because I know we had frontage and then side area.

Is this something that we've clarified?

Okay, so then that's my question.

Well, that was brought up.

There's there's um the the diagrams that we saw that showed proposed sidewalk, proposed mixed travel area bike, and I think there was intention in the North Spa downtown specific plan to have the ability to develop those areas.

And is the proposed project um potentially compromising that area based on where the the frontage or the side area is I guess they're different, it's there was a range of like five to fifteen, and so it made me think it could be as narrow as five or it could be as wide as fifteen.

So I'm we're a team here, and I'm probably gonna ask Mr.

Davis to answer one question, but before we get there, on page 27 of the initiative, there's the proposed North California Boulevard cross section, and you'll note that we illustrate the picture, but then underneath it we say it's amended to add the following text at the bottom of the figure.

This figure applies to land zoned M U R S C.

So we're taking the exact cross section that's in the specific plan on North California and applying it to our zone.

On the next page, we do the exact same thing for Ignacio Valley Road.

We make it clear that this also applies to the MURSC zoning code.

So then there was a question about well, why is the dedication then only limited to three feet?

And that had to do with the amount of land that would be needed to create the minimum setback.

We didn't, and I'm gonna now I'm gonna let Chuck either tell me because you're whispering to me, and you'll remember this better than I did about on North California what the th three foot limited on the dedication was because I don't remember where that text is in the initiative right offhand.

Hi, for the record, Chuck Davis, Senior Vice President of Development for Hall Equities Group.

Um the cross section shows a half right-of-way there.

There's a little bit of fuzziness and and things.

We've got about 50 foot right now from the center line to the edge of the current right-of-way.

So we're identifying that we'll give the extra three feet to make sure that that cross section can be built on North California, and then from that point, you have your setback of five to the the ultimate maximum, depending on if it's that's a primary or secondary.

Same thing on Ignacio Valley Road.

There's up to eight feet.

That's the cross section that's in the Northtowntown specific plan.

We're gonna do that.

That's included in what we would do in the project, and then it would be five foot up to the maximum as a setback from that point.

So we're just making it clear because there were some exhibits and some of the things that that were let's just say inconsistent, and these cross sections were the one thing that was uh that was tying down specific numbers, and we want to make sure that you know we're gonna honor those um.

Let me before he walks away.

And and no, you could come back up.

And I I just wanted to clarify.

So you have just said yes that this diagram requires three more feet in order for it to go from 49 to 52, because that's if you look at the current cross section and the proposed, and that that extra three feet will be given, will be dedicated as to this right-of-way net necessary, and then the setback would start from there.

That is accurate.

And the same thing would be true on um Ignatio Valley Road.

And that if you look at the general plan and the North Downtown specific plan, they actually come forward and say on different streets that those are the anticipated dedications required by people who have properties there, not just here, but throughout there.

We're just acknowledging that we recognize that it's in there, we're baking it in, uh, and that would be nothing's changing.

Correct.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

And I saw staff sort of you do you have something to add?

Yeah, okay.

Um just to echo uh I you called it out perfectly, um, that the existing width right now is 49 feet.

And then I know it's a little blurry, but on the screen, it's um the proposed is 52 feet, so that's where the three feet comes from.

Same thing when you're looking at Ignacio Valley Road.

Um, it's about eight feet in order to get to the full proposal.

So to get to those widths where you actually have people walking on the right of way and not on private property.

Correct.

They need three feet on North California and eight feet on Ignacia Valley Road.

That is correct.

So the team here has effectively done the math.

They've proposed the language to say that no more than those exact amounts will be dedicated.

I um that's how I'm reading the language on the screen.

And so the only thing I would put out there is, you know, the intent is to meet this specific plan, but being very particular about the dimension of dedication, depending on what that future looks like.

Again, a lot of times when you put pen to paper, oh turns out it wasn't three feet, it's really five feet, or it's you know, it could vary in the future.

I am not a civil engineer, so take a big caveat there.

But um they are meeting the requirements that are outlined in the North Downtown specific plan, but having that very particular dimension does reduce some flexibility in the future.

And assuming this diagram is perfect.

I will not speak to that.

The sidewalk ends at 52 feet.

And then that would be potentially requiring the building that would be proposed has to have some kind of setback from that edge of sidewalk that we're not yeah, if this sidewalk is the property line, let's say, where the sidewalk is touching the green strip there, let's call that the property line, um, then there would need to be anywhere from five to fifteen foot setback depending on whether it's a primary or secondary frontage.

Okay.

But I thought they gave us another three feet and then started the property line.

Is that what I heard?

No.

Yes.

That would that there's the 52 feet plus three.

No.

No.

No.

So right now the width is 49 feet, and so we need three more feet to get to the 52.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

So let me ask a question.

Is the planning department so assuming one of two things, either we adopt we are adopting it, or it goes to a vote, and let's say it passes on the ballot.

Our planning department is still working throughout the process, working with uh the developer and making sure everything adheres to what the plan is, and I mean it's it's not just like it's being built in our planning department's not involved.

That's correct.

Are you talking about for a future development?

For a future development.

Yes, correct.

So a future development would come back through the city for review.

So and it's also true that to the extent that there are other amendments that have to be made to conform to all of these changes.

That's what Mr.

Simon's report was talking about, the estimated cost of around 250,000 total, because there will be other changes likely that may need to be made just to have internal consistency in the documents.

And so that would have to happen too.

So we've been here for an hour and a half now hearing asking questions, and we literally have two a decision of either approving it as is without changes or putting it to the ballot as is without changes.

That is our decision.

We're we're not a planning commission.

We're not going over all the details of of all any kind of changes.

So I agree.

I agree with that, and I'm not trying to belabor it, but and I appreciate it when Mr.

Hall said.

I if I could ask you a question about your long-term vision, because the part of this that you know it's not we're not voting on a project, but the part that's most exciting to me is the potential for a commercial mixed-use activity center on the north downtown.

So realistically, does that require and we know you you've had you got a successful track record in town.

You know, we know where you not where you live, but we know where your office is.

So she knows that.

But it um is it dependent on taking that five-story parking structure and putting the parking underground to actually have enough space to do a commercial center.

What what is the likelihood that that will come to pass?

I I think that's critical.

I mean, that my view is that has to happen to get the type of commercial that we would like to uh plug in there.

You know, I would remind you that the North Downtown Specific Plan has uh uh an incentive as a community benefit to put a grocer up there.

And there is a hole in the market, we've studied this just in from sprouts and Lenartis all the way down to Safeway and uh Whole Foods and Trader Joe's.

And if you look at where a lot of the recent housing formation has been in the city over the last 10 years or so, we've had quite a bit in the Ignatio corridor.

We now have Waymark adding to that.

And we're getting to an inflection point where and and I believe this project will be it if we can get this done correctly, that we can in fact do a real true commercial project here as opposed to sort of ground floor storefront that you see in what is basically an apartment building.

I and and and what has happened at Pleasant Hill BART.

I don't know if I know Councilman Councilmember uh Silver remembers this, that when we developed the uh uh the the sprouts uh on the old uh co-op piece years ago, uh that filled right away.

And we got very good rents, um very successful project.

And at the same time, Pleasant Hill Bart was building those multifamily buildings with quite a bit of retail space, and they sat there vacant for years until they filled, and it and the rents were not that great and the tenant mix was not that great.

It just was it was a project that was designed at the Pleasant Hill BART with housing in mind and commercial was an afterthought.

And you know, we've had a lot of experience in retail, and to make retail work, we have to have a certain critical mass of convenience parking, not in a garage, not like Andronico's tried to do, which didn't work.

We need to have convenience pull-up parking.

And that means that garage has to go away.

And we have to figure out a way to pay for that.

That's expensive.

And that's where this senior housing component is the part of the market right now that is working.

A lot of the market is not working product wise.

This is where the demographics are penciling right now.

I'm looking at all of us.

So I mean, is it fair to say then your interest and investment in this property is long term and applies to the entire site, not just the four acres?

Our our investment is much bigger in the office buildings than it is in the 2.4 acre piece.

So we're hoping to improve the value of the entire block substantially with this project.

And I know that for the very same reasons we believe that we can do that.

That will flow across the street.

What we're doing here will benefit our neighbors as well, and it will make that BART station district a much more desirable location for a company to come locate and create jobs in Walnut Creek.

And that's an important factor.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

So in front of us is uh basically one decision.