Good evening and welcome to the May 9th, 2024 meeting of the Walnut Creek Planning Commission
Will the Secretary please call the roll?
Commissioner quack present Commissioner Ward here Commissioner
Klopp is absent
Commissioner Ricer here Commissioner Nating here
Vice chair Anderson is absent chair strongman here
Thank you
Moving on to item two, which is the consent calendar. We do have one mission
I don't want the consent calendar. Do I have a motion to accept or
Desire to discuss the consent calendar item
Move to approve the consent calendar ie the meeting minutes of 425
I'll second
Please call the roll, please
Commissioner quack. Yes, Commissioner Ward. Yes
Commissioner clock is absent
Commissioner Reiser? Yes. Commissioner Neiting? Yes. Vice Chair Anderson is absent.
Chair Strongman? Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. And moving on to public communications,
this portion of the meeting is reserved for comments on items not on the agenda. Under the
Brown Act, the Commissioner may cannot act on these items raised during the public communications,
but may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, requests for clarification
or refer the item to staff. Do we have members, any member of the public here that would like
to make a public comment? Seeing none, we will now close public communications.
On to item four, public hearings. The first one will be 4A, faith-based auxiliary dwellings,
ordinance amendment and it's citywide. We'll start with a staff presentation.
Good evening, Chair Strongman and members of the Commission. My name is Aaron Sage.
I'm a principal planner with the community development department and
this is the first of many zoning amendments to implement our housing
element, which as you probably know was certified by the state last October. So
you'll be seeing a lot of me. So this item deals with accessory dwelling units
on so-called faith-based properties and I'll get into definitions of that a little bit later.
So first of all, a little bit of background. As you probably know, accessory dwelling units are a
very important source of affordable housing. In Walnut Creek specifically, they have produced
about 55% of all of our below market rate housing since 2015. When you look at the low income
category, they constitute about 80% of that category and about 98% of the
moderate income category. So needless to say these are an important way that
conquered, or excuse me, Wellness Creek satisfies its affordable housing
obligations. Having said that, one of the programs in the housing element was to
allow ADUs on faith-based properties as a way of expanding on that that
important source of housing and specifically program H2Q of the housing
element commits the city to quote expand the ADU ordinance to be applicable to
faith-based properties just a quick note as you probably know the city must
continue to make progress timely progress on implementation of its
housing element programs in order to maintain certification of its housing
So the housing element program does not define what it means by faith-based
organizations and the zoning ordinance doesn't define that term either. However,
the zoning ordinance has a closely related term called religious assembly
use and the definition of that is on the screen in front of you and this is the
the use that we are relying upon to implement this program. This use is
permitted in various zoning districts as you can see listed there. Just a quick
note that if it if a religious assembly use is allowed in a PD zone the specific
approved PD for that property has to list religious assembly as a permitted
use. And there are approximately 35 properties that with this type of use in
the city so that kind of gives you a sense of the scope of how many ADUs we
could potentially see from this amendment.
Now, the program in the housing element
does not specify how many ADUs should be allowed
per religious assembly property.
So this is a policy decision that the city council
will need to make.
And what staff has brought forward
is an approach that basically tries
to follow the standards and the types of ADUs
that you would typically see, which
would be one detached ADU on a single-family property.
So in the proposed amendment, we've implemented that,
that approach, one ADU will be allowed
per religious assembly property.
Junior ADUs, which are specific to single-family homes,
would not be allowed for religious assembly
under this amendment.
All other standards that apply to an ADU
on a single-family property would apply to this situation.
And I've listed a few of those standards here,
maximum floor area of 1,000 square feet,
a maximum building height in most cases of 16 feet.
There's a few exceptions to that.
And then a requirement that the architecture of the ADU
be consistent with the architecture of the main building.
And there's specific language that defines
how that consistency is achieved.
So with that, I'll just summarize our recommendation
on the item.
proposed zoning ordinance amendments to allow ADUs on properties with religious
assembly uses and adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt
the proposed amendments. And with that, happy to take any questions. Thank you
for your presentation. Questions for staff? Just a quick one. Has there been any
outreach or engagement with the faith-based community regarding to date?
I mean, have they chimed in on it, and what's that look like?
We did send a letter regarding tonight's hearing and briefly summarizing the amendments to
all of the religious assembly properties in Walnut Creek.
We didn't hear back from any of them thus far.
City Council would be another opportunity for them to get engaged, and we'll notify
them of that as well.
We also did an e-blast to about 7,000 subscribers to our affordable housing contact list, and
that includes a lot of people from the faith community, so they were notified via that
channel as well.
But, yeah, thus far we haven't received any comments from members of the faith community.
Okay, thanks.
Other questions?
Commissioner Ward.
questions?
Commissioner Ward?
So just following up on that question, so you don't know whether any of these faith-based
housing providers would be interested in having more than one ADU, no idea of whether they're
interested at all, or whether the limit of one is problematic to their programming?
Correct.
We haven't received feedback on that specific question at this point.
Okay.
This would be a new allowance, so this would be one additional then that they would currently be allowed
So this wouldn't be any kind of limitation
Well, it is a limitation. You're saying that they're gonna treat the
Church essentially the religious building as one plan one single-family home. So they get 180 you or did I misunderstand that? I
think what
Secretary Juan was just saying was that currently a religious assembly use is not eligible for any ADUs and
The proposed amendment would expand upon you know, the current status quo and allow one ADU
So I think you know in that regard it is it is an expansion from what is currently allowed
Okay, right. I mean that's zero is less than one for sure, but but you're treating the
property regardless of size or
the type of programs that they have historically done or any there's no consideration other than
One lot one adu that's that's the way the ordinance is being drafted here
Not not not in the current proposal, but if the Commission wishes to forward on to the the council
You know a more permissive recommendation would be happy to to carry that to the council
Okay, so are we commenting or is this just questions here? We're doing okay, I'll hold them. Thanks
any other questions? If I could just add briefly to my response, if a religious
assembly use happens to have a residential use on the property, then
that residential use is eligible separately for whatever ADUs that it
would qualify for. So we're not sort of forcing someone to, you know, double count
or, you know, not get credit separately for the religious assembly use. So if they
they already have a home for staff on the property,
historically a pastor's house or something like that,
then they would get to one for the church building
and one for the interesting, okay?
I'll still hold my comments.
Okay, any other questions right now?
Thank you, and we will now open public committee,
the hearing for the faith-based accelerate ADUs
on faith-based properties.
Do we have any member of the public
who would like to comment on this item?
Yes, please.
Hello, I'm Rachel Lorenz.
I live in Walnut Creek.
I'm a renter, and I would just like to put my support
out there for adding any further housing
we can possibly get.
A lot of single-family homes in Walnut Creek,
as a renter, it's very hard to afford them.
Anything we can do to expand the ADU would be amazing.
Um, I'm currently living a lot that was just sold going to be probably turned
into more single family homes.
So anything we can do to expand that would be incredible.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
And I'm going to close the public hearing on this item and return it
back to the commission for comments.
And who would like to go first for the comments?
Yeah.
Commission award.
I guess I'll go since I, since I started here.
So I'm going back, as you've probably guessed,
to the limitation on one ADU per lot
with the religious-based organizations
regardless of the size of the lot
or anything else that is happening there.
And I just think there's a difference
between something being equitable or fair
and something being equal.
And to say, oh, we're trying to be fair to everybody
by saying you can only have one each,
in my mind is not, it's not really fair
because some of our religious based organizations
have really been carrying the,
they have been taking the burden of all of our obligation
to provide housing on a lower, a more affordable basis
or for homeless people, unhoused individuals
and we have been happy to let them take
all the responsibility for that.
You know, we as a city have a ethical and legal obligation to provide some of these these services to our community members
And I think it doesn't make sense to treat
those people those those organizations or organizations that just have a huge amount of land historically and want to
Address the housing crisis that we have either to provide more affordable housing as we've heard
commented everybody's in need of or to provide more stable and permanent housing for unhoused
people to try and transition them off the streets and into more dignified and safe housing
for them. So I don't know whether there's a demand for this or whether some of these
organizations would do this if we allowed them to because apparently we just don't know
of that, but I think it's not, it doesn't seem reasonable to just artificially restrict
the number of ADUs we could have just because it's fair or simple or to do it.
And if we're going to do that, why is the number one, you know, why wouldn't it be,
you know, five if we could, if all the other building code or other planning obligations
were met.
it seems very arbitrary to me and I don't I don't understand the restriction being put on
there artificially. So if I can offer a thought for the commission's consideration just to
follow up on commissioner Ward's comments and apologize everybody that I have to be on Zoom
we're at a conference in southern California so I'm here. But so the program in the housing element
is proposing this expansion to faith-based property
as one of the housing strategies.
And the program is pretty flexible.
It doesn't, it's a basis upon which the city
can consider this type of expansion.
And I think the intent of this first step is that
this is not the final thing that you can do
under this program.
And this is kind of taking the first step
at implementing the program by the timeline
that it's outlined the housing element.
And also that in consideration
that state law has other provisions
to allow religious assembly properties to develop housing
that's in addition to ADUs.
For example, you have the SB4,
if the religious property is qualifying projects,
they can develop housing,
under the administrative approval process.
And you have the AB 2162 provisions
with support housing plus supportive services.
That's also a avenue for such properties to expand.
So in consideration of all these tools,
I think the intent for this amendment is that,
we start with what is provided by state law
to other residential properties,
and then going from there to satisfy the intent
the program and to further implementation of it.
Okay, thank you for that explanation.
I appreciate that very much.
I just, I don't understand the limitation
without any details with regard to a particular application.
And I, and maybe there's no interest in this at all,
that it seems like we're saying that a substantial portion
of our affordable housing or, you know,
is being provided by ADUs.
And we know that a substantial portion
of our emergency and shelter housing for unhoused people
is being provided by these faith-based organizations
in our community.
And so I don't see why we would limit people's imaginations
in terms of turning underutilized property
into something that can really serve our community
and serve a tremendously underserved portion
of the community that we've been looking at.
I would prefer that it be something more flexible
based on the particular circumstances of the property
and the program that's being provided,
rather than just saying one each regardless
of the particular details of the site
where it would be considered.
So if I could see if I could understand what you're saying
is to be more of a function of the available land.
That if there was a functionality of how much per,
If they have five acres, they could have three,
or if they have 10 acres, they could have 10 or something.
I don't know, they get numbers out of my number.
Yeah, I don't think anybody's got 10 acres
in downtown Walnut Creek,
but they've been hiding it if they do.
But yeah, I mean, if there was a lot of land
or there was a desire to create a more integrated community,
you know, community of ADUs with social services involved,
you know, I just don't see why we should squelch
that imagination and that idea without even just because,
well, we want it to be fair, everybody gets one.
That doesn't make sense to me.
I mean, I'm not, I mean, I'm gonna support this regardless
because I think it's a great idea
and I'm totally in favor of it.
I just, it just seems like that most applications
to build ADUs or anything else in our community,
you know, the details matter and the site matters
and the amount of land matters
And all these things make a difference in terms
of whether or not we can support and approve applications
for these kind of housing items.
And so I think, I would just hope that there would be,
if not today, then going forward,
a little more flexibility to allow people to think big
and to really use their creativity
and all the resources that we have to try
and serve and to resource people
and to create more affordable housing
community that desperately needs it. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes. Commissioner Neattin.
Hi, Claire. You and I had spoken specifically about the, I couldn't remember what it was,
I just called it Yes in God's Backyard because that's how I remember it when it was passed by,
I believe, it was supported by Wiener's office. But one thing I hadn't asked, so Commissioner Ward,
That was one thing I had asked Claire was could would s before still be alive because that to me is is important
So Claire, do you know when s before sunsets?
Um, I believe it is in sometime 20 36
2036
But also keep in mind that
Anytime, you know recently anytime that a bill highly sunset date it has you know, either of an extended
when it's close to being sunsetted or it's being sunsetted or it's being except that they has been further extended by the legislature.
Right, I've personally worked on tiny homes on faith-based land as a designer
and I read some of the public comments about safety considerations and traffic and who's going
to be there to manage it. And my husband and I are we have built a community at a nearby church and I
can you know tell you from experience that most churches are so involved with parents, elders,
a lot of the youth that there's constantly every single night something going on. Not to say that
the parking lot is extremely full and that I'm bringing light to churches now having traffic
that nobody knew about, but it's to say that there is life in a lot of these campuses that go beyond
on the Sunday, so the safety aspect,
I'm not worried about that at all.
I share a lot of the same feelings
from Commissioner Ward, and so it would be interesting
to me to see that should SP4 sunset,
that then this ordinance help supplant
some of the flexibility of those homes
that the churches were able to give,
notwithstanding this one.
To me, I think that would be something reasonable
because it's still following the intent of SB 4,
it's still following the intent of the general plan.
I don't even know if that's even possible
if the general plan, I saw the language,
if it's specifically stated it was only one
or if the intent was to provide,
I believe it said 80 use were 7% of the total housing.
It was 147 units, now I'm just going off memory,
which is a terrible thing to do.
But that was kind of my thought.
Thank you.
Comments down there?
I guess I'll share my comments and my thoughts.
So I do wanna also recognize the work of the city staff
for all the work they've done to make this consistent
with the current state law,
as this appears to have been a process
that is very much needed, I would say.
As state law continues to evolve,
we should make sure the city municipal code
also stays and stuff.
And so, I also did some numbers
because I was kind of curious to know like,
well, how many properties are there?
And as Aaron said earlier,
there are about 35 properties in the city
that would be covered by the changes
to the faith-based communities.
And so to what Melissa was saying earlier,
to the 180 U one property,
that's maybe a multi potential maximum of 34, 35
throughout the city with this change.
And with the rena allocation of about 500 units,
34, 35 is a very small amount with impact.
So that was my perspective coming into this.
do very much appreciate the efforts that we're doing as someone who is also a
renter and is someone who is also looking for housing in the city I do
understand it's very difficult to find housing and so any effort to make sure
we can house people in all sorts of communities in Walnut Creek it's a
wonderful gesture for the city to the communities that live here and
that want to live here.
Thank you.
Would be interested in maybe recommending
this resolution to the city council,
but add the comments that we'd like to consider more.
Expand their thinking a little bit on that
to having more than one per unit.
I mean, yes, I would like that, obviously.
I think that, I mean,
I just think that we need a little bit of flexibility,
not to put a restriction on something that when there is an opportunity for something bigger.
It may not be necessary. There may be other avenues that are that are more appropriate,
but to the extent we can make things easier for people to do to provide more affordable
housing for our community, I think we should do that. I don't think we should throw up any
artificial roadblocks or additional administrative burdens or anything, even if we could.
We don't even have to think big ourselves, we're just saying other people can think big
about this.
I'm not advocating for us to throw out any requirements or guidelines or safeguards or
guardrails or anything.
I'm just saying that if there is an appropriate location where more could be done and there's a
There's a group of people that want to do that
I don't think we should stop them because we thought it was fair to have only one per because I don't think that's fair
It's equal, but it's not fair
comments on that
As since we're the recommending body
I think we're all of the opinion that we should recommend to the City Council that we do approve of this and want them to consider
possibly a number higher than one or the nexus of
the SB 4 point that was brought up that they can already build under this SB 4 and
if that if that Sun sets or some sort of language that allows that to be a consideration when this is being accepted or
mentioned in it
Well, I think it's just think about it
We leave those to the people now to do that right that's our idea
It's great to be on this side of the table
So can I add a thought so one of the things I came across as I was reading through the
What are they called the the draft amendments to the code is that currently?
there may be certain
communities that have multiple that occupy multiple parcels and so
Although I think my understanding is currently if the amendments were to go in it would be
regardless of how many parcels the
Building occupies it will still be 180 you allowable to it. But if we did it on a one parcel 180 you
Requirement or metric then that might allow a little bit more flexibility for
buildings that occupy multiple parcels, I
don't mind that but I think it would I would prefer that we
Recommend this resolution as is but also add those things is okay city council. Consider this you can change it easier than we
Could we have a motion?
And I'll just I'll just add if the planning Commission that's what the Commission wants to do
You can't adopt the resolution with the you know additional comments regarding
Considerations for a flexibility for building character site character lock size
You know
and comparable use, that kind of things.
Thank you.
You can include that in your motion.
Thank you.
Yeah, so I would make a motion that has exactly that.
Thank you for that.
So we want to recommend the resolution as written,
but with the addition that we would like the council
to consider additional flexibility based on all the things
Claire just said, a whole lot size,
you know, support of the, you know,
for whatever program people are considering,
just that there not be a strict,
necessarily a strict numerical limitation
without consideration of the particular circumstances
that surround a potential application for constructing ADUs.
Is that, how's that, is that enough?
That's worthy of a second.
That's worthy of a second unless we need to.
Unless we need to fix it somehow.
So just for the record, it sounds like the motion was for
the ordinance to be adopted with the Council,
with the Planning Commission recommending
that the Council consider flexibility,
consider more than one unit.
Was the motion including the match,
the SP4 at sunset or did you want to leave that out?
I think that was one idea in terms of how we could,
we could build in flexibility to that.
Well, also if somebody feels, right, Commissioner Ward,
oh it's just so vague then you could use SP4 has been doubt tested and tried and
people have used it here in MoMA Creek and so that's why I only brought that up
okay so that can be added to the motion and then that'd be great thank you
you okay with that seconding I'll second that please take the roll please
Commissioner quok yes Commissioner Ward yes Commissioner clock is absent
Commissioner Reiser. Yes, Commissioner Nathan. Yes
Vice chair Anderson is absent chair strongman. Yes motion passes. Thank you
And moving on to item 4b the density bonus ordinance
update
Start with staff
Just give us a minute to load the new presentation
All right, I'll skip the introductions obviously this next item is
regarding
There are second amendment that flows out of the housing element related to our density bonus ordinance
So starting with some background state density bonus law has been in effect since the mid 1970s
The basic idea of the law is that local?
jurisdictions are required to grant additional density beyond what would otherwise be permitted in that jurisdiction when a
development includes a specified level of affordable housing,
or housing for seniors, or other disadvantaged populations.
The city adopted, as many other cities have done,
it's a local ordinance to implement state density bonus
law that was adopted in 2009.
And since 2009, there have been a number of changes
to state density bonus law such that we
are in need of updating our ordinance to reflect those
changes to state law.
Just to give an example of one of the updates that's needed,
for many, many years, state law allowed a maximum density
bonus of 35%.
So if you had 100 units normally allowed by the local zoning,
the project would be eligible for up to 135 units.
And the city's current density bonus ordinance
kind of bakes that in to its own local code.
Since over the last 5 to 10 years, the state has adopted,
I counted about 12 bills since 2016,
that made major changes to the density bonus law.
That 35% is now 50% for the income categories
that are available.
and then you can go even higher than that
for special scenarios.
So that's just to give you one of the most obvious examples
of why the update is needed.
So in 2019, or excuse me, 2018, staff
initiated an update to the Density Bonus Ordinance.
And there was a study session with the Planning Commission
in September of 2018.
And then there was a follow-up session with the City Council
in 2019 and the overall feedback both from stakeholders
that commented during that process as well as the planning
commission and council was that there
needed to be a lot more flexibility in the city's
density bonus ordinance to reflect various scenarios that
weren't covered by density bonus law.
And so staff heard that feedback,
started working on bringing back further refined recommendations
to counsel in March of 2020.
Of course, we all know what happened in March of 2020.
The pandemic basically canceled that process.
And tonight is where we're picking it back up again,
essentially.
The housing element did include a program
to amend the density bonus ordinance,
to ensure compliance with current state law,
and to maintain the existing provisions in our code
for density bonus benefits that exceed state requirements.
So that's an important feature of the city's density bonus
ordinance, is that it allows a conditional use permit
to be requested for projects that go above and beyond what
the density bonus ordinance allowed at that time.
So the density bonus ordinance that we're
bringing to you tonight, these are the major elements of what's included in
that. The first one is to remove specific affordability and density bonus
percentages, the number of incentives or concessions and reduced parking ratios,
all of which are specified in the state law. So rather than repeating what's
already in state law, which has changed numerous times in recent years, we're
simply referring to the state law as it will probably continue to evolve. So this
This change will limit having to come back for further local amendments.
This also makes our ordinance much shorter and easier to digest, easier to implement
both for applicants and for staff.
The old ordinance was about 13 pages, and the proposed ordinance was about 7 pages.
Second point is regarding that supplemental density bonus provision that I just mentioned.
keeping that as we committed to do in the housing element, but we are making it
less specific. There's no longer a specific affordability that has to be
met to qualify for that, to even ask for that bonus. Now it simply says you know
anyone can ask for additional density bonus beyond what state law provides
through a CUP process. And that lack of specificity actually addresses a lot of
the feedback that we got from the Planning Commission City Council
previously. They were wanting specific scenarios added to that supplemental
bonus, many of which are already now allowed under state law because of the
changes that have happened since 2019, but any other scenarios or flexibility
that the council requested would be available through this kind of more
open-ended CUP process. The city would retain full discretion over that that
CUP so it's it's the type of approval that doesn't require require it to be
approved due to state mandates because it goes above and beyond density bonus
law. Third, we have a provision in our current ordinance that inclusionary
units do not qualify for density bonus benefits that they they don't count as
as the affordable units that qualify you for a density bonus.
That is in conflict with case law,
and so that needs to be deleted.
The fourth bullet is also we're deleting a requirement
that applicants have to show, quote,
economic feasibility in order to qualify
for waivers or reductions of development standards.
Waivers or reductions of development standards
are basically whenever a specific height requirement
setback, parking, anything that would preclude the project
from achieving the density and the incentives or concessions
that it is entitled to, then along with those things,
the project is entitled to reduce or waive those standards.
And the state has narrowed down the types of things
that cities can request related to those waivers or reductions.
And so this change acknowledges that.
And then finally, we have requirements currently
that affordable units have to be, quote,
dispersed evenly throughout the project,
not concentrated in a specific area,
and, quote, compatible with the design and appearance
of the overall project.
We are essentially maintaining those requirements,
but with more objective language that kind of meets
the objectivity test that we now have
to apply to all standards related to housing
development in the state.
I'll just note that attachment nine of your packet
kind of provided a point by point discussion
of the previous recommendations that were brought to city
council and supported by city council
and basically why those are already addressed by state law
or by the flexible supplemental bonus provision that's
in the proposed amendments tonight.
So again, our recommendations that you consider
the proposed ordinance amendments
and adopt a resolution recommending
that the city council adopt the proposed amendments.
And as with the previous item,
you're obviously welcome to include any additional
flexibility or recommendations that you have
on top of the proposed ordinance.
Thank you for your presentation.
It's a lot of work.
Questions for staff?
I don't see a whole lot is set.
Okay, we will now open it up for public comments, public hearing.
So any member of the public would like to come and comment on this.
They're welcome to do it and I'll have two minutes.
And seeing nobody rushing up here, we will now close public public hearing and bring
it back for comments from the commission or emotion.
like to just comment that that was a tremendous amount of work and expertise
that went into combing through the existing ordinances and bringing them up
to code and so I really have to commend you for that and also for giving us a
report that we could understand when we read it and I appreciate that very much
as well because these concepts are extremely complicated and it really was
a great effort so thank you very much for that and with that if there's no
more comment from anybody else I'd like to make a motion to to adopt the
resolution as drafted. I made the motion you can second it. You gotta lean in so
we can hear ya. Please call the roll please. Commissioner Kwok? Yes. Commissioner
award? Yes. Commissioner Klopp is absent. Commissioner Reiser? Yes. Commissioner
Nathan? Yes. Vice chair Anderson is absent. Chair Strongman? Yes. Motion passes.
Thank you. Moving on to Commission considerations. Do we have any? One
announcement by staff. The May 23rd 2024 Planning Commission hearing will likely
be canceled and staff will provide an update as soon as possible. Okay, thank
you and moving on to item 6 commission member our staff reports or
announcements seeing none we will now be adjourned