of the Walnut Creek Planning Commission. Will the Secretary please call the roll?
Commissioner Kwok? Present. Commissioner Ward? Present. Commissioner Klopp? Present. Commissioner
Vicer? Present. Commissioner Nating? Here. Vice Chair Anderson? Also here. Chair Strongman?
Here. Thank you. And item two is a consent calendar. It appears we do have nothing on
the consent calendar. We do not. Thank you. And we'll move on to public
communications. Public communications or anything that the public is welcome to
speak on anything that is not on the agenda. And we'll open the public
communications, see if anybody's interested in approaching the mic and
addressing the Commission. Seeing no one running towards the podium, I'm going to
close the public communications and move on to our hearing item 4 and I assume
our first one will be amendments to the accessory dwelling unit regulations for
a zoning ordinance amendment go ahead thank you good evening planning
commissioners my name is Jessica Gonzalez associate planner and I will be
presenting the ordinance amendments for the accessory dwelling units and junior
accessory dwelling units. And before I get started I just want to do some
housekeeping. After the draft ordinance amendments were published we've reread
things and just really want to make sure that things were simple and clear to
understand. So we have made some revisions and that was distributed and
posted as addendum one and that is the revised draft ordinance with highlighted
changes. So before I get started I just want to provide an overview of what I'll
be covering. So I'm going to start with a just general discussion regarding the
legislative background behind accessory dwelling units or ADUs as they're
commonly referred to. And then I'll also provide some context regarding our
current regulations and then provide an overview of some new legislation which
which is detailed in the staff report, and then I'll also provide a summary of some
of the proposed amendments, which are in align with state law as well as input we've received
from HCD.
And HCD has specifically commented on a few areas that we need to update, specifically
the need to increase the number of ADUs allowed per lot, the need to increase our height limits
for ADUs and the need to allow for a separate sale of certain ADUs.
So getting started with the legislative background and our current regulations.
So as you're aware, California legislators have determined that the state is in a severe
housing crisis.
ADUs have often been considered a potential solution as they can provide for additional
housing units and they're smaller in scale and do not include any land cost so they can
be less costly to build.
And they also can provide a source of income to the homeowner which can help to offset
some of that construction cost as well.
And so for these reasons, pretty much since the 2000s, numerous state laws have gone into
effect which have required local agencies to not only allow ADUs by right but really
to require us to streamline the process, and to remove and reduce certain standards
for ADUs.
Getting into our current regulations, so in 2021, the city council adopted the current
ADU ordinance in response to some state law from 2019 and 2020.
Among other things in compliance with state law at that time, the ordinance was amended
to reduce the setbacks, siting rear setbacks to four feet, allow ADUs on lots containing
multifamily, and then remove the parking requirements.
So getting into some of the new legislation, between 2021 and 2023, several pieces of state
legislation have gone into effect, which have amended the government code regulating ADUs.
And among other things, they require local jurisdictions to update our regulations, to
allow multiple ADUs on lots with single family and multifamily, also to require us to allow
specified heights for ADUs, and then various other changes.
More recently, state law was passed, which really outlines our allowed timeframes and
processes for ADU building permit review and the bill also prohibits any kind of discretionary
review or hearings for ADU and the changes in the amendments before you include a new
section which really speaks to the allowed processes and time frames which closely follows
state law.
Getting into some of the proposed amendments in the draft ordinance, I'm only going to
to cover the areas where we've received some input and interpretation from HCD, but starting
with the number of allowed ADUs on a single family lot. Our current regulations allow
for one ADU and one JADU. In accordance with new state law, we are now required to allow
for the creation of a conversion ADU and a detached ADU in addition to a J-ADU.
And so the proposed ordinance amendments are in line with HCD's recommendation and state
law to allow two ADUs in addition to a J-ADU.
And this is just a visual depiction of what all that basically means.
As I noted, currently we allow one ADU in addition to the primary home and a J-ADU.
The proposal is to allow two ADUs, so really we're just going from allowing two additional
units to allowing three additional units.
Getting into the amount of ADUs allowed on a multifamily lot, our current regulations
allow for two detached ADUs on a multifamily lot or the conversion of existing non-livable
space up to 25% of existing units.
State law has been updated and now requires us to allow both and that is reflected in
the draft ordinance before you tonight in align with HCD's recommendations as well.
Just briefly getting into the height, our current ordinance allows for 16 feet in height
or the base district height.
It really depends on the type of ADU and the setbacks.
Under new state law, we are required to allow 16, 18, 20, and 25 feet, really depending
on the type of ADUs.
And the proposed text amendments are in line with those height allowances.
There's a few other proposed amendments in line with HCD's recommendations.
We are proposing to allow separate sale of certain ADUs, also proposing to include corner
side setbacks as part of our existing forefoot side and rear setbacks.
We are also proposing to remove the minimum rental periods for JADUs and, of course, remove
any non-objective standards or design criteria for ADUs as the review for ADUs must be ministerial.
And then we are also proposing to add the recently adopted SB9 standards, objective
SB9 standards to the ADU ordinance as well.
And so with that, staff does recommend that the Planning Commission review the draft zoning
ordinance amendments and adopt the draft resolution, making the CEQA and other findings, and recommending
adoption to the Wanna Creek City Council. I'm available for any questions, but this
was a larger group effort, so I may defer some questions to the city attorney's office
as well as our long-range principal planner. Thank you.
Thank you for your presentation. I'll start out with questions from the commission.
Mr. Anderson.
Commissioner Anderson.
First.
Thank you.
First, just a very general question.
This is a response to state law.
And I assume that, you know, many of the changes are, in fact, dictated by state law.
Others are made as a, in order to comply with state law.
I may not be specifically dictated, but the effort is there to comply with the state law.
Are there any parts of this that you would consider
to be discretionary, or is it all pretty much to comply
with state law, and not necessarily do anything more
than that, that's really the focus and everything is kind
of included in that subset?
Yes. As proposed, the text amendments are pretty much just
comply with state law that was passed between 2021 and 2024.
I'll just add real quick, the discretionary portion, the local
jurisdictions do have some ways to establish objective standards and so we
have the objective matching standards, for example those were reviewed and
comprised by staff and adopted by the council for SBI units so they're also
included here and so that's one portion of local control for that. Okay a couple
of specific things. There's a reference to corner side setbacks. I just want to
clarify that's when you have a corner lot so it's got two frontages but but
the non-primary frontage is still considered to be a side lot. That's
correct yeah that would be the street side on the corner that's not the front.
I just want to clarify that.
Yes.
And as I understood earlier, and maybe it was earlier, 20 to 21 laws, rather than the
later ones, but that the approach was that single-family lots could be split, and each
one of those lots could have a primary dwelling at an ADU.
I hadn't realized that there was,
is it required by state law
that if you just have a single home,
you can have three ADUs?
So the current regulations allow,
if you have a single family home,
you can have one ADU and one JADU,
which a JADU is a type of ADU,
it's smaller in scale, limited to 500 square feet.
It's a conversion of existing living space.
They can share some of the facilities with the home.
So basically the two units.
based on the new, you know, proposals with under new state law, we would be required
to allow there are different types of ADUs, but basically two ADUs and a JADU, so an
additional three units to the primary home.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the earlier idea of, you know, splitting the lot
and then having two units on each lot, that there was, in fact, anticipated there would
be a lot split, is that correct? Could there be two single family homes on a
single lot? Right, I can clarify that. So under the ADU statute there's the
general requirements for cities to permit ADUs and you can either have a
attached, detached or conversion. And then state law carves out certain categories
of ADUs where cities must permit those. So those types for single families is
is one conversion of space in the home
or an accessory structure.
Or it's a detached 800 square feet freestanding detached ADU.
So those are the two types that are mandatory in a statue.
And as you will observe from your packet,
HDD has opined that its interpretation of that law
is that the city has to allow both categories.
So that's two units.
And in the law split situation,
if it's a normal subdivision,
the standard ADU rules apply.
If it's an SB 9 law split situation,
our SB 9 ordinance only allows one ADU
on one of the resulting parcels
because SB 9 does not require city
still allow ADUs in that situation.
So if it's an SB 9 split,
you're gonna have one single family home.
let's call it the original home, with an ADU.
You split off another lot that has another single-family home.
That one cannot have another ADU?
You can pick one.
So if you pick that parcel, that parcel could have an ADU,
but not the other resulting parcel.
Okay, so the lot as a whole would have three units.
Two single-family homes and one ADU.
On one of the parcels.
Because the other parcel could have the SB9 units
if they choose to do that.
But they would not be able to have an ADU.
So you wind up with two single-family homes and one ADU?
Correct.
From the original lot?
It was split in two.
OK.
Yes.
The result would be two lots, one of which,
as Claire noted, could have an ADU.
And then the other lot could have a duplex.
So you could have a total of four units.
Okay.
You couldn't, but you couldn't have ADUs on two different lots.
Right.
Okay.
Interesting.
So let's say you have a single family lot, you have a single family home, and you have
as, you know, you showed there three ADUs, one kind of interior to the unit, one adjacent
to the unit, and one separate.
One is a JADU.
So you've got now four units, do I presume correctly that something is fairly large lot
that you could not at that point do an SB 9 split or could you then do that and still
have another unit or two on that original lot?
So part of it, it depends on the size of the original lot.
So for SB 9 units or SB 9 lot splits, it's meant for smaller size unit lot sizes, but
But if you have something that's like two acres, you could probably do a subdivision
depending on the zoning.
So it really depends on the size of the lot in terms of like what type of subdivision
you want to do, if that makes sense.
I'm thinking not a two-acre lot, I'm thinking more, you know, maybe a half-acre lot or a
little bit bigger, which, you know, if you're clever and careful and the setbacks allow,
you know, you could split that and still produce,
you know, I'm wondering if you could produce
in whatever order it might occur.
And so it sounds like you could do the split.
You could build, if you split the lot,
you only get one ADU that you can attach.
If you utilize the SP9 a lot split,
if it's like straight zoning, so let's say
you have half a current high.
I don't think of the SB9 split.
Yeah.
So if you do SB9 lot split, then what the council has decided
is to allow one ADU on one of the lots.
Otherwise, SB9 doesn't require ADU allowances because
of the SB9 unit allowances.
So that's separate from the situation
where we get one, two, three ADUs attached to a single home.
Yes.
I think I got it.
Thanks.
uh other questions i actually have two questions it might be more for
you know i have a really good kina on the law first question is for conveying units
it's that is i when i read that this is not ab 1033 no so ab 1033 is not required
cities may choose to introduce an ordinance to allow for the separate conveyance for the
condominium maps at this time we're not recommending that but we have updated in
the proposed text before you the allowance of you know separate sale in
certain situations for I believe it's nonprofit has built or developed a site
perfect and then I was just curious because I know a few other it's been in
the news other jurisdictions like San Jose yeah just did that so I wasn't sure
That's a separate requirement nonprofit. Right, right, right. Okay, and then the second question I had was regarding
Section 3 of 6 6 3 2 3 and it's it's really about
multifamily
because this is the part that's that I thought I got it and then it's what says that it's limited to
to
280 use this is for new construction
per lot
So technically speaking wouldn't the Davis so if the Davis Sterling act
right creates
Lots for attached products like multifamily. Does that mean that then any lot that's created in
A CID would then each be allowed 280 use
Because when I read it, that, right, not more than two accessory dwelling units that are
located on a lot that has an existing, or proposed multifamily dwelling.
And so I started thinking to myself, townhomes, for example, are considered multifamily, but
then you would create individual lots for them.
So does that mean that they have, they're allowed to ADUs per the future lots that would
that would contain the attached townhomes,
which is multifamily?
That's kind of a complicated issue
because townhomes kind of can be considered multifamily
or single-family.
They are one unit per parcel.
Not lot.
So parcel but not lot.
Well, I'm using parcel kind of generically.
So you could also say one unit per lot.
I think that's something we probably would want
to do more research on before we try to answer tonight.
Sorry, I was noodling as I was driving here.
I think that the general rule that with the multifamily,
yes, you do get the two units,
but like Erin was pointing out,
if it's configured in such a way
that it's not considered multifamily
or it's not the use, because the allowance is by,
in the residential mixed use district,
but if it's the underlying use is not multi-family
or if it's multiple buildings,
then that's not necessarily considered multi-family
for the purpose of this section.
So, but we can do more research and report back.
Well, if I could just clarify a bit.
I mean, townhome's not a thing under the Davis-Stirling Act.
It's either a condo or it's a plan development
and the ADUs only apply to the plan development.
So there are very few plan development town homes
that have enough real property attached to them
to even consider anything other than a JADU
or something of that nature.
So meaning that, because for a town,
for attached town homes, each one would be a condo.
Like in a-
They're not all condos.
No, I'm saying if in a condo town home project
and that each town home has its own little lot
CID then you would be allowed to ADUs so if it's a condo it doesn't have its own
lot first of all and if it's a condo then the ADU ordinance doesn't apply to
it so so it's only if it's a townhome style planned development that we would
have to think about it at all and it's I mean like I live in one right so I own
the lot and the whole property but there's no space for an ADU detached or
or otherwise.
I think it's kind of a rare exception
that we don't have to really dive into in this ordinance.
And I mean, the city attorney may disagree with me
and I'll defer to that, but yeah.
So, and then there would be HOA rules
that would have to be comported with
regardless of what the statute would allow,
even theoretically, so I...
Yeah, like I said, it depends on how it's configured
And we can do more research, but that doesn't change,
necessarily change the general applicability
of the multifamily ADU rules here.
Other questions?
I have one kind of a philosophical question.
In 50, since we're creating two major types of ADUs
with several subtypes, in 50 years where we're all gone,
how is the city and the community
to keep track of that. Which one is which and does it matter? You mean for the existing lot
where they're already developed and built? Yeah I mean as we will we the city council will hopefully
implement this people start building ADUs under the different categories and we're going to move
on to the great beyond at some point in the next 50 years but the city will be here and the ADUs
will be here and their houses will be here and there are lots whether they're split or not split
it will be here.
How will the immunity try and keep track of that stuff?
Or does it really matter?
Under the proposed text amendments, it does matter now
because the unit allowance is depending on the type, right?
One from type one and one from type two,
but I believe we would also be requiring the description
on the plans to speak to the type of ADU.
And so luckily nowadays we keep a lot of digital files.
hopefully those will be available for future reference. So, thank you. I think that even if
it's a ministerial approval there's still a permit involved. Yes, yeah so you would be prepared. So
there's going to be some record of it. Okay. I say that with some trepidation because I actually
built the first second unit in Orinda after the second unit ordinance was passed. I went through
all the permitting and everything because I wrote the ordinance so that was easy. But when I went
went to sell the house they could find no record of it so that does happen but
I had my own record so that worked okay but as long as they keep the
records you know it be able to trace it back to be able to write it might be
advisable to have them record something to identify it the recorder's office
second question is do we expect any more changes from the state that we see
coming down the pike I expect that yes okay I think we can expect that and we'll
now open it up for public hearing and seeing one person out there that's a
member of staff I don't think we'll have we will open and close public hearing
and bring it back to the Commission for discussion or motion I did just want to
thanks staff for the late corrections I mean or edits I do think it makes it
clearer so I appreciated that and appreciated being able to see what was
changed so thank you very much for that I'll move the adoption of the draft
resolution has presented an attachment one second so this is the addendum
That's reflected in Denden.
That's reflected in the addendum.
Okay motion and second. Please call the roll, please.
Commissioner Kwok?
Yes.
Commissioner Ward? Yes.
Commissioner Klopp? Yes.
Commissioner Reiser? Yes.
Commissioner Nating? Yes.
Vice Chair Anderson? Yes.
Chair Strongman? Yes.
Motion passes. Thank you.
And moving on to our second project, which is the ordinance update for zoning
Zoning order and definition of family.
Well, staff, welcome to make the presentation.
We could just have a few moments to get the PowerPoint.
Okay.
I had a corrupted file or something.
Do we need to take a quick recess?
30 seconds.
30 seconds, okay.
We'll hold on.
Okay, thank you for your patience.
Aaron Sage, principal planner
for long range planning and policy work here.
And I'll be presenting an item to update
the zoning ordinance definition of family.
And the first question, in many people's mind,
probably, on reading that description is,
why the heck does the city regulate what a family is?
So let me start by kind of setting some background
of what we're talking about when we say
there's a definition of family.
So about 100 years ago,
cities started doing zoning regulations.
and one of the main things they were trying to accomplish
was to separate single family homes
from other types of uses.
So from the very beginning of zoning,
the word family was kind of an important legal term.
And that kind of lives with us to this day,
although it's evolved since then.
But in our current zoning ordinance,
the kind of foundation for this item tonight
is that the definition of a dwelling unit,
which is right here before you,
is one or more rooms served by a single common kitchen
designed for occupancy by one family
for living and sleeping purposes.
And this can be, of course, both a single family dwelling
and a dwelling unit within a multifamily building.
So the definition of family then becomes important
because it sort of defines what type of people
or household can occupy a dwelling unit.
and that definition is in front of you.
I'll just read it through it.
It says, one person living alone or two or more persons
living together as a single housekeeping unit
in a dwelling unit.
A housekeeping unit shall be a group
which bears the generic character of a family unit
as a relatively permanent household
regardless of biological relationship
and which is characterized by the following.
Shared use of a single common kitchen,
Shared household expenses used by all persons
of a shared common entry to the dwelling unit.
Shared use of all or virtually all areas
of the dwelling unit at all times.
Shared responsibility for household work.
Shared food.
Sharing of some or all meals.
Occupation of the unit under a single lease
if the unit is not occupied in part by the owner.
And finally shared social, economic
and psychological commitments.
So quite a detailed list there to ensure, basically,
through a variety of means and methods
that whatever the city considers to be an appropriate family
is occupying these units.
I will just point out that in the original days
of regulating family, it was really
the traditional definition of people related
by blood or marriage.
the courts in the mid 20th century
determined that that was a form of discrimination.
And so ever since then, cities have come up
with other characteristics of families
that are not tied to marriage or blood relationship.
So we move from there into a couple of programs
from the housing element, which are really
kind of what's bringing us here tonight.
Program H4E is requiring, or the city has made a commitment
to update the zoning ordinance to regulate employee housing
for six or fewer employees in the same manner
as single family dwellings
per the California Employee Housing Act.
That act basically says what I just read.
It says that employee housing,
which is really just housing provided by an employer
for its employees, for six or fewer employees,
has to be treated no differently
than a single family dwelling.
And that program has a deadline of fall of 2024.
So that was the main driver
for putting this agenda item together.
As staff was working through that item,
we came to the conclusion that the best way to ensure
that we comply with the California Employee Housing Act
is to just state affirmatively in our definition of family
that employee housing for six or fewer employees
is considered a family.
One could argue that many groups of employees
would already meet that definition of family
because there's nothing inherently that says, you know,
that that doesn't work as a family.
But we felt that to affirmatively show the state
that we were complying with this item,
we needed to just go ahead and say that explicitly.
So as we started to amend the definition of family,
we looked ahead to some of our other housing element
programs and wanted to make sure that,
hey, if there's any other programs
that also would require changes to the same definition,
let's try to combine those and achieve some efficiency.
And, you know, I don't like this metaphor,
but kill two birds with one stone.
So that brings us to Program H4H,
updating the definition of family to remove language
that creates constraints for persons with disabilities.
And let me explain more about that.
So here we are again with the list of items
from the definition of family.
The two that are highlighted, shared household expenses
and shared responsibility for household work.
Those two items are specifically identified
in the housing element as things we need to remove
because they are constraints on persons with disabilities.
If you can imagine, shared responsibility
for household work, a person who has limited mobility
or has a mental health disability may very well
not be able to contribute much, if anything,
to household work.
Likewise, shared household expenses.
Persons with disabilities often are on limited incomes,
and so HCD directed the city that that was also a constraint.
The program also says it cites these two items,
and then it also says, or any other parts of the definition
that would be a constraint on persons with disability,
basically leaving it up to staff to do further analysis.
And in that analysis, we identified four additional items
that we are recommending for removal.
Items D, F, and G are also clearly
constraints on persons with disabilities,
or at least could be in many cases.
Obviously, if a person has limited mobility,
they may not be able to access all areas of the dwelling unit,
as item D requires.
shared food, you know, somebody who has dietary restrictions or is just unable to access
the location of the shared food, and then sharing some of, or all meals, if someone
is bedridden or, again, has limited mobility, that could be difficult.
And then item I doesn't necessarily relate directly to persons with disabilities, but
It is so vague and difficult to enforce and really even understand how that would be interpreted.
It's very subjective.
So we just felt that if we're cleaning up this definition, let's go ahead and remove
that.
And what that really leaves us with is three items that are very objective, that are very
easy for code enforcement staff to determine whether those are being met or not.
And that really also really go to the impacts and the distinction between a dwelling unit
and a boarding house or a rooming house or a totally different type of living arrangement
where you have multiple leases, you have multiple kitchens perhaps, and more of a dorm or boarding
house type of use, which is really, I think, what this definition is trying to draw a line
between.
So here we have the text amendment that we're asking you to approve.
The cross out, obviously, is text being deleted, and the red is new text.
The only real new text is just to add the reference to employee housing, so we're just
explicitly including that as a family,
but otherwise the changes are as I described
on the previous slide.
So I'll conclude by just kind of briefly running through
some of the policy background for this change.
One of our city council priorities
is around diversity, equity and inclusion.
To keep building on the progress we've made
to establish Walnut Creek as an inclusive community
that welcomes diversity.
I think that this ties in very closely
to being more welcoming and accessible
to persons with disabilities.
In our general plan, a couple of policies
that stood out in our analysis were
quality of life policy 2.8,
to maintain a range of high quality housing
and affordable workforce housing options.
And around built environment policy 5.1,
require infill development to be compatible
with adjacent nearby uses.
first one I think is clearly related to this as we are opening up more housing
options in general particularly workforce housing which is typically
single-family homes would not typically be considered a workforce housing type
but if there's less restrictions on who can what types of people and what types
of groups can get together and be considered a household legally and rent
a single family home, then that is going to open up more options.
And then on the second one, this relates to ensuring that we, as we make these changes,
we continue to have the ability to enforce those distinctions that do exist between dwelling
units and other types of uses.
And I think the remaining language in the code does that.
And then finally, from our housing element, goal H4 is to minimize the impact of potential
governmental constraints on the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.
And the current definition is a constraint as identified in our housing element.
So we are addressing this goal tonight.
And then I just wanted to finally kind of summarize the objectives of this item.
First off, to comply with applicable state laws, implement our housing element, increase
housing options and provide more equitable access to housing for employees and persons
with disabilities, and finally to maintain the components of the current family definition
that distinguish individual dwelling units from higher intensity group residential uses.
And here's the recommendation that you will adopt the resolution that's been provided
recommending that the city council adopt the proposed amendments to this definition.
And with that, happy to take any questions.
Thank you for your presentation, and quickly the history of how we got to this problem.
Questions?
Commissioner Ward.
Hi, thank you very much for that interesting presentation, particularly, like our chair
said, the history portion.
So defining family and putting it in government regulations or other rules, you know, strikes
terror into my heart basically and as someone who well nothing's more important to me than
my family obviously I think there's a lot of ways to make and have a family and I find
that history and use of regulations pertaining to families to be historically grossly discriminatory
and exclusionary you know worse when you know certain people couldn't get married to other
people and we were defining, you know, things through that better now, but still just not
great.
And I'm just wondering why we're doing this at all.
Why not just eliminate the family definition entirely, except when it's absolutely required
to cross-reference a particular statute?
And why not, I mean, it seems like we're really dealing with occupancy limits and those, why
not just have that?
and then have exceptions for various protected classes
that we need to have, like age, family status,
children, you know, these kind of things.
I just, I don't understand why we're jumping
through all these hoops to count the number
of entry doors or kitchens or things.
It seems unnecessary.
And I also am wondering why we're holding on so tightly
to this historical just negativity
with regard to boarding houses.
you know, oh my gosh, it's not 1849 with a gold rush.
You know, people like, you know, doing this crazy stuff.
If we're really trying to create a larger variety
and a larger variety of cost price points
for different kinds of housing,
then I don't understand why a boarding house
is so terrible, honestly.
Why people getting together and, you know,
having renting bedrooms or doing different things like that
is such a huge problem to us.
It seems like the problem is people's conduct or the fact
that people would be overusing communal resources
or making too much noise or doing
all these different things.
And we have regulations for those things already.
So I don't really understand why that's an issue.
And I think when you have hacker hostels that people put in
and do all these things, those could
be addressed by occupancy limits and other regulations
on conduct as opposed to status,
and I'm always opposed to regulating status
unless it's absolutely necessary.
I think we should regulate conduct,
and if noise or nuisance is a problem,
we should address that.
We shouldn't say, oh, well, you're not a family,
so you can't be here.
And I think that things like skilled nursing facilities
and sober living facilities and all these exceptions
to the zoning regulations are already very clearly defined
in our statutes, and I just am not quite sure
what we're trying to do here and why it's so necessary.
And I, this is, I obviously put a lot of work into this
and I really do appreciate it,
but I'm just wondering like why we need it.
Like what is it getting us to eliminate
every single definition other than how many front doors
we have and whether people are, you know,
have one kitchen or not, I'm just not sure what we're doing.
Well, we are implementing the housing element.
We have very clear direction that we do need
to amend this definition.
So we're carrying out that direction.
I think the changes that we're proposing
go pretty far in the direction
that it sounds like you'd like the city to go
by substantially deregulating the definition of family.
But what I'm hearing is that,
and I appreciate the comments, I really do.
What I'm hearing is that it doesn't go far enough
and really there should be a kind of a much more
ambitious policy change brought forward in this area.
And I think that something like that could certainly,
staff could certainly work on that
with direction from the city council to pursue that.
But that would require a ripple effect
of other changes throughout the code to kind of,
because as I showed, the definition of dwelling unit
relies on the definition of family.
And obviously, single-family and multi-family dwellings are,
it's a use type that is sort of sprinkled throughout the city.
So we would just have to kind of work
through all the implications of what
would be the new regulatory scheme
and how would that be implemented.
That would take some pretty substantial analysis.
But obviously, with direction from city council,
staff would work on that.
but we do have a short timeframe
for this particular housing element that we need to meet.
Okay, so I mean, that was part of my question too.
Like we're being forced into it basically
because the term family is just embedded in so many places
throughout the various codes
that we can't eliminate it entirely.
I mean, that's just-
Not at this time.
Okay, I mean, I think it should be a goal.
I think it's contrary to our DEI objectives
and our objectives to try and have a greater diversity
of housing types and price points in the community.
And I think it's unnecessary.
I do really appreciate the insight
with regard to the unintentional discrimination
against people living with disabilities.
I think that's really something I hadn't thought about
in that way and I think that's really helpful.
And obviously the emphasis on economic contribution
to a household also discriminates against
a huge number of people who contribute to the welfare
of that household, but do not get money for their work,
essentially, which is disproportionately women,
but not always, and so I think that's a good recognition
as well, although not a stated, complete objective for this.
But I just, once we've stripped it down
to these three things, I just kind of feel like,
well, what's the point?
I mean, really, the family should be,
I mean, you should be able to live with whoever you want,
obviously and love whoever you want
and have your family set up the way you want
as long as you're not bothering the other neighbors
and hurting people or doing these things.
And I just don't really wanna get in the business
of regulating whether or not that's permissible
because it's none of my business.
And I don't think it's the business
of the city of Walnut Creek either.
So I mean, to me, I'm not opposed to what you've done here.
And now that you've explained that it kind of stuck
I've got some old-fangled terminology here.
That's great, and I do appreciate that.
I just think that maybe we need to think a little bigger
when we're redoing all these statutes
and just think, well, why?
Why do we hate boarding houses?
Why are we involved in people's families?
Let's just go with numbers of people
and whether or not you're bothering people.
That just be my opinion.
Thank you.
I appreciate the explanation, though.
Other questions?
Commissioner Anderson.
Just to piggyback on that,
the, I think part of the issue that you bring up
is because of the word family,
which has all kinds of connotations
in a million different ways.
And you're right that since we've taken out all this stuff
that sort of relates to families,
and what we're really talking about
actually appears in here,
Which is a housekeeping unit.
A housekeeping unit should be a group
which bears the generic character of a family.
Well, does it really have to
or can it just be a housekeeping unit?
I mean, the terminology seems a pretty simple fix actually.
I'm not suggesting that we fix that as we speak,
but maybe not at this time,
but at the next time or at some,
perhaps not too distant future time,
say can we just use housekeeping unit
And have it related to dwelling unit
and not get ourselves enmeshed in families.
Because, you know, I do a state plan
and families are really tricky.
So complicated, so complicated.
Yeah, I think that's a really good point.
I really appreciate that comment.
And I, you know, it's not as warm and fuzzy, clearly,
but I really don't want the government involved
in my warm and fuzzy family at all.
So good, I think it's a good suggestion.
of the questions and obviously comments at this point in time. Let me open it up
for public hearing listeners and seeing how this is the time anybody in the
public present can come forward and speak to us on this subject and seeing
none I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission for
comments or more questions or a motion. All right well if no one else has any
comments or questions or speeches they'd like to make at this time. I would I
would move that we adopt the resolution as drafted and you know I think I think I
owe you that for all your hard work so thank you for that. So that's my motion as drafted.
We have a motion and a second the secretary please call the roll.
Commissioner Kwok? Yes. Commissioner Ward? Yes. Commissioner Klop? Yes. Commissioner
vice-chair. Yes. Commissioner Natey. Yes. Vice chair Anderson. Yes. Chair Strongman. Yes.
Motion passes. Thank you and moving on to Commission Commission considerations
do we have any considerations? None from staff. Okay and moving on to the next
item was Commission member and staff reports or announcements any
announcements or reports? Seeing none we will now be adjourned as item 7 thank
Thank you for coming tonight.