Did the City Council handle approval of the Almond Loft project fairly?

Back in November, Walnut Creek City Council members were concerned that there might be an inadequate number of spaces in the proposed nine-unit housing development at the edge of the Almond-Shuey neighborhood. They were so concerned that they all agreed that the project should go back to the Planning Commission. But, according to the Contra Costa Times, developer Galen Grant asked the council to reconsider his project without going back to the commission, and the council Tuesday night voted 4-1 to approve it. Says the Times:

So the council, in essence, agreed to hold a public hearing and make a decision on the project on Tuesday after that hearing. This move confused and angered concerned Almond Shuey neighbors, but the city attorney told the council it was legal. .... Some City Council members said they were uncomfortable with the way the meeting was handled.

And if they were uncomfortable with how the meeting was handled, four of the council members agreed to approve the project because, among other things, they found that the developer had addressed the chief concern of the project: parking. Back in November, council members expressed the desire for the project to have at least 18 spaces instead of the 14 that the developer initially planned to provide.

The project features seven seven single-family detached homes and one duplex, to be built on an oddly shaped half-acre fronting Oakland Boulevard between Almond and Trinity avenues. The developer presented a new plan with 20 parking spaces, "though some of those are achieved through 'tandem' parking, in which the space in the driveway of the garage is considered a space," the Times reports.

Mayor Sue Rainey was the solo vote against the project, echoing concerns among neighbors about the city's need to protect neighborhoods. The neighborhood's "character" was the chief concern among Almond-Shuey residents who opposed the project. Almond and Shuey avenues are lined bungalows built as early as the 1920s, though its outer area is zoned for high density housing. Apartment and condominium complexes front both Oakland Boulevard and Trinity Avenue, which surround the Almond-Shuey neighborhood.

One of the Almond-Shuey neighbors speaking out against the project, including the City Council's handling of Tuesday night's approval, is Tom O'Brien.  He wrote a guest commentary for this blog prior to the council's November 17 meeting. Back then, he expressed concern about "the city's process by which developers and city staff come together to advocate for a project make it difficult for the neighborhoods to get a fair hearing."

He sent in this commentary on Tuesday night's meeting: 

As it turns out, our voices were heard at the November 17th City Council hearing. We raised concerns over a number of issues related to the zoning, parking, driveway access, and trash collection. We requested that the project be returned to the Planning Commission to work out some of the issues we raised.

Somewhat to my surprise (cynic that I am), the Council agreed with us that the parking wasn’t really adequate, and that some of our other issues deserved further review. After a bit of discussion among the Council members, the mayor (at that time Gary Skrel) concluded that it was the consensus of the Council that the project be referred back to the Planning Commission.

Galen Grant, the Almond Lofts developer, privately contacted each of the Council members afterwards, and unbeknownst to us, appeared at the December 15th City Council meeting. During the “Public Communications” portion of that meeting, Mr. Grant told the Council that he had revised his plans to address the Council’s concerns, and requested that the Council’s decision to return the project to the Planning Commission be reconsidered. He asked that the project be heard again at the next (January 19th) City Council meeting.

By law (the “Brown Act”, named for Ralph M., not Edmund “Pat”, or Jerry), the City Council cannot take action on proposals made during “Public Communications.” This is only fair, because the matters raised in “Public Communications” aren’t posted in advance and therefore all of the concerned parties may not be represented.

Of course, fairness isn’t necessarily the City’s top consideration when it comes to pushing development forward.

While the Council couldn’t legally grant the developer’s request and schedule a hearing for the next City Council meeting, the Brown Act does allow the Council to refer a matter to the staff, and to ask the staff to come back with a recommendation at a later meeting. The staff recommendation can then be considered at a properly-noticed public hearing. That’s what Mayor Sue Rainey did – she asked the staff to provide the Council with a recommendation on “if and when” the project might be reheard at a later Council meeting.


The staff placed the do-over hearing for the Almond Lofts on the January 19th City Council agenda, as the developer had requested – not just a consideration of staff's recommendation to rehear the project – but the hearing itself! What ensued can only be described as an Alice-in-Wonderland public hearing (as in the trial of the Knave of Hearts, when the Queen of Hearts shouts "sentence first - verdict afterwards!) The Council held the public hearing, then voted to hold the hearing they had just held, then voted to approve the project based on the hearing they had just voted to hold after they held it.


The lesson to the neighborhoods is clear – even when a public hearing goes your way, as it did for us on November 17th, the outcome only lasts until you leave the Council chamber.

City Council heeds neighbors' parking concerns; sends Almond/Shuey development back to Planning Commission

The City Council decided Tuesday to not approve a nine-unit residential project in the Almond/Shuey as currently planned. Instead, the council said the developer should go back to the Planning Commission and work on ways to provide more parking to residents on this half-acre site, at the Oakland Boulevard edge of the neighborhood.

The project involved nine homes that were to be built on an oddly shaped lot at the corner of Oakland Boulevard and Almond Avenue. Most of the homes would be detached, and on their own lots, including one that will consist of a duplex. Most of the homes are two-bedroom, ranging from two to three stories, and between 1,400 and 1,900 square feet. The project has been debated and discussed since 2004.

The Planning Commission approved the current plans, but not unanimously. Four commissioners praised the the developer for making several concessions and revisions to reduce its density (from 12 units to nine). Two commissioners said “no,” based on continuing concerns about insufficient onsite parking, access to the homes, and traffic issues.

With regard to concerns about density and parking, Almond/Shuey resident Tom O’Brien, who spoke at Tuesday night's meeting and has written about the project on his own website, says these “tightly-packed” homes are of a higher density than zoning permits in that neighborhood.

As I reported earlier this week, with a guest commentary by O'Brien, O'Brien has pointed out that each of these homes would feature a double-master bedroom design. As he writes on his website: “The developer has stated that one target market he has identified for the homes is young professionals who need to take in a roommate to afford their first home. Since it is reasonable to assume that a number of these homes will be occupied by unrelated adults, each of whom is likely to own a car - the neighbors believe that at least two parking spaces should be provided per unit. Throughout the hearings, staff has indicated that only 1.5 spaces per unit are called for, per the BART Proximate Parking
Ordinance."

At Tuesday's meeting, council members also expressed concerns about the project's density and the parking issue, according to minutes from the meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Sue Rainey said the project looks "very crowded," while Councilmember Bob Simmons noted the neighbors' concerns about parking. He commended the developer for doing a fine job with a difficult site, but wondered if it is entirely consistent with the character of this historic neighborhood. Finally, Mayor Gary Skrel stated he is fine with there being nine units on the site, but said that 18 parking spaces should be a requirement.

Guest Commentary asks whether Walnut Creek staff, leaders really listen to neighborhood concerns regarding projects

This guest commentary comes from Tom O’Brien, a resident of the Almond/Shuey neighborhood, right next to downtown.

His commentary comes in advance of Tuesday night’s City Council meeting at which members will be asked to approve the construction of nine new homes, on a half-acre lot, at the Oakland Boulevard edge of this charming, historic neighborhood.

The homes, to be built on the oddly shaped lot at the corner of Oakland Boulevard and Almond Avenue, will be detached, and on their own lots, including one that will consist of a duplex. Most of the homes are two-bedroom, ranging from two to three stories, and between 1,400 and 1,900 square feet.

The project has been debated and discussed since 2004. The Planning Commission approved it, but not unanimously. Four commissioners praised the the developer for making several concessions and revisions to reduce its density (from 12 units to nine). Two commissioners said “no,” based on continuing concerns about insufficient onsite parking, access to the homes, and traffic issues.

With regard to concerns about density and parking, O’Brien, on his website about the project, says these “tightly-packed” homes are of a higher density than zoning permits in that neighborhood. He adds that each of these homes would feature a double-master bedroom design. “The developer has stated that one target market he has identified for the homes is young professionals who need to take in a roommate to afford their first home. Since it is reasonable to assume that a number of these homes will be occupied by unrelated adults, each of whom is likely to own a car - the neighbors believe that at least two parking spaces should be provided per unit. Throughout the hearings, staff has indicated that only 1.5 spaces per unit are called for, per the BART Proximate Parking Ordinance. "

You can read more about the pros and cons of this project at O’Brien’s website and in the staff report prepared by the city’s Community Development department in advance of the City Council meeting. The Contra Costa Times also covered the issue back in early October.

Meanwhile, O’Brien believes this issue raises larger questions about city responsiveness to neighborhood concerns about projects and whether the city shows favoritism to developers—over those of residents. Read his commentary, and see what you think, whether you agree with O’Brien or not.

Thanks Tom for raising this question. I know it’s something that’s on the minds of residents, in the wake of the Neiman Marcus controversy. It has also come up as a topic in the series of Community Conversations the city has been holding to prioritize its goals for the future.

Anti-neighborhood bias in Walnut Creek
The questionnaire given to all applicants for the Walnut Creek Planning Commission points out that “frequently, at a public hearing, you will hear testimony only from those opposed to the project," and asks how the applicant would respond. (I sometimes suspect that the preferred answer is that you will listen politely, but not let the ravings of those whining malcontents influence your decision to approve the project.) If the City of Walnut Creek included the neighborhoods in the planning process, public hearings might not be so confrontational. But the City has chosen a different path.

When a developer comes to the City with a new project, the developer and the City Planning staff sit down in private and craft a proposal amenable to both. Staff then works to push the project through the public hearing process. All the neighborhoods can do is to try (often futilely) to voice our concerns over staff-level decisions we never had a say in. The Parkmead neighborhood was put in this position with the Mark Scott homes. Homestead had their battle over the Homestead Hilton. Now it’s the Almond/Shuey’s turn with the “Almond Bungalows."

Without consulting the neighborhood, the City staff decided that the zoning on the lot at the corner of Almond Avenue and Oakland Boulevard could be raised, the parking didn’t need to meet current standards, and the driveway for what is essentially an Oakland Boulevard infill project could be sited on our quiet neighborhood street. From the very first public hearing, these decisions have been presented as settled, and the neighbors’ attempts to have the impacts on our neighborhood mitigated have been rebuffed. Staff has even reinterpreted City codes and ordinances in support of their position. The Design Review and Planning Commissioners have followed along with the Staff’s recommendations – after all, Staff has more credibility than those whining neighborhood malcontents – don’t they? The project has been forwarded to the City Council for final approval.

You can see what we’ve been up against to date at http://www.inertboom.org/bias. Our neighborhood’s final stand will be this Tuesday, November 17th at the City Council meeting. If you agree that neighborhood issues aren’t given a fair hearing in Walnut Creek, please come support us.

Thank you,
Tom O’Brien
Almond/Shuey neighborhood resident.