Good evening. Welcome to the October 9th meeting of the Walnut Creek Planning Commission and
ask the Secretary to call the roll. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Morin? Here. Commissioner
Cowan? Here. Commissioner Strongman? Here. Commissioner Kwok? Here. Commissioner Klop? Here. Vice Chair
Knighting? Here. And Chair Anderson? Here. Gangsala? Here. We have Quorum. Okay, thank you. Next on the
the agenda is a consent calendar I understand we have a puzzle to move one
of the items staff would recommend that the Planning Commission move item 4c to
the consent calendar to join the count the the proposed 2026 commission and
council calendar the the item to be moved would be the chowdery new single
family residence does anyone here to speak on that matter no sorry you know
and I would entertain a motion to move that to the consent calendar.
I move that we move item 4C to the consent calendar.
Second.
You call the roll.
Commissioner Klop.
Yes.
Commissioner Strongman.
Yes.
Commissioner Moran.
Yes.
Commissioner Cown.
Yes.
Commissioner Kwok.
commissioner vice chair night yes chair Anderson yes did I miss anybody okay
and motion carries all right so we now have two items on the consent calendar
and I moved to approve the consent calendar discussion on the motion or
second second any discussion no call the roll on the consent color yeah I'm
sorry who made the motion thank you yes commissioner count yes commissioner
strongman yes mr. Moran yes mr. quack yes mr. clock yes vice chair
nighting yes and chair Anderson yes motion carries we move to public
communications there are two points at which you have as members of public
chance to speak one is on particular matter that's on the agenda at this
point you have a chance to speak if you wish to speak on something which is not
on the agenda that you want to bring to the attention of the planning Commission
Does anyone wish to have a public comment? If not, then we will move on. The public
hearings first is the zoning text amendment regarding the residential
care facilities of a staff report. Thank you. Good evening Chairperson Anderson
and members of the Commission. I'm Crystal DiCastro, Principal Planner in
the Community Development Department. The following item is a request for the
Planning Commission to consider a resolution recommending the city council adopt an ordinance
amending various sections of the zoning code related to residential care facilities along
with minor code updates.
State law requires cities to address barriers to housing development for vulnerable populations
including persons with disabilities, the unhoused, extremely low income household seniors, and
the local critical workforce.
with this requirement, the City's housing element program requires the amendment to
the zoning ordinance to increase the flexibility of residential care facilities or RCFs in
all zones that allow for residential use and reduce their parking requirements.
So what is a residential care use?
So under the City's zoning code, it defines two types of residential care use.
One is Residential Care Home or RCH and the other is Residential Care Facility or RCF.
So RCH refers to small facilities that serve six or fewer individuals allowed by right
in all residential zones per state law.
RCF refers to larger facilities that serve seven or more individuals allowed by right
in some residential zones and others may require a use permit in residential zones.
Both types provide 24-hour non-medical care and are licensed by the state.
State law requires that cities treat RCH as a residential use.
To support and implement the city's housing element program and expand housing opportunities
for special needs population the proposed amendments would update the
definition for RCH and RCF clearly distinguishing them by capacity so RCH
has six or less and RCH has seven or more it would update the base district
regulations to allow RCS in areas where RCH is allowed and then align the
parking requirements as follows in residential zones apply the same parking
standards to RCFs as RCH and then reduce the employee parking in non-residential zones
from one space per employee to 0.75 spaces per employee while maintaining the current
0.25 spaces per bed requirement.
Staff evaluated three alternatives and parking standards in three nearby cities, the cities
of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Pleasant Hill.
The analysis included four existing RCFs in Walnut Creek as seen here.
As highlighted in this table, alternative 1 provides a moderate reduction in total parking.
It helps avoid over parking in residential areas and aligns with regional practices and
trends.
Lastly, it maintains adequate capacity for both staff and visitors.
Earlier today, the City received a comment letter requesting for an additional amendment
And that would be to use floor area ratio or FAR
in residential zones.
FAR measures floor area, not building shape.
So development in residential areas are concerned
with keeping the character of the neighborhood.
Therefore development is based on coverage,
setbacks, and height, not FAR.
In non-residential zones,
such as commercial zones or mixed use zones,
FAR is based on the intensity of its use.
So typically buildings within mixed use or commercial zones
like downtown is more intense.
So they're taller buildings rather than the buildings
that are in residential neighborhoods.
The amendment before you tonight
would not limit the amount of beds within a facility.
Therefore, RCFs would be feasible in residential zones
as the amount of beds is controlled
by the State Department of Social Services.
If the commission would like to add far to this list of amendments in residential zones,
staff would need more time to study the implications of this in the residential zoning districts.
Next is the minor code cleanup items.
Adding the definition for objective standards is one of the cleanup items, and that is just
to be consistent with what the state allows and what is defined by the state.
Next is removing an outdated summary use table.
By removing this table it avoids redundancy.
And also we have the data parcel viewer now available online that the community can refer
to.
And lastly with each zoning district in the chapter it lists what the uses are that are
allowed.
One more thing is the ADE ordinance update.
The update is to align with state law as it clarifies provisions for occupancy.
sprinklers, demolition permits and noticing and this is already something
the city already practices because it's a state law. In conclusion, staff
recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending Council find
the proposed amendment exempt from CEQA and adopt the ordinance. Staff is
available for any questions. Questions of staff. Let me ask a question. The letter
that we got regarding using the FAR in residential zones, they
mentioned several, I guess, proposed them as precedents, where they'd use FAR for
it. But as I understand, all of those were in commercial zones. Yes, they were in
PDs so they weren't in residential zoning their office commercial and and
having ourselves our CFs in commercial zones evaluated one way and having them
residential zones evaluate a separate way that all that complies with the
state law that would comply with the state law okay thank you
Miss Chacunt.
So in the letter that we received, there were two sections that they suggested.
One was for the section in residential districts, but the other was for in non-residential districts
asking to add the line that says the maximum density for a residential care facility shall
be governed by the maximum floor area ratio in the underlying zoning district.
From what you presented here, it sounds like that's already the case.
That's already the case because they're more intense uses, so they use FAR.
But we don't have that wording currently.
It's just a practice rather than—my question is, would we need to add the wording that
the letter is suggesting in order to clarify that going forward, or?
I believe that it's clear, but I would need to ask legal to.
So for nonresidential districts,
and then let's go back to zone does go back to the general plan.
The general plan land use designations
prescribes a range of F.A. are for nonresidential
land use designations and a range of densities
for residential density for residential land uses.
So in doing so, the zoning code picks up the same thing
and drills down a little bit.
But what it does, I think the different word here is maximum.
So that would be a minor change.
I mean, if the city wished to add the word maximum,
it would give them by right to max out that density range
listed in the general plan.
And let me add to that by saying that the state also recently classified R.C.F. as subject
to utilizing density bonus.
So they are residents.
Commissioner Moran.
Thank you.
I caught a line in there saying that R.C.F.'s bed count was regulated by the state, I'm
assuming it was the department of that.
Yes.
there do you know what that cap is because I'm what I'm wondering is you
know RC 8 the the smaller version is 6 or less but it's 7 to we don't know or
yes they have their regulations for that and I'm not sure exactly what those
regulations but I think it would be related to safety and health
requirements and fire code I know I know you can't tell me but is it I wonder
what that is. The fact that there's no there's no ceiling and I understand you
know that we're not talking we're gonna put 20 beds in there more than likely
but I wish I knew. Yes so what I can say is for a residential zone you're limited
by the size of the building the setbacks and the height so whatever would be
allowed by the state within those confines of that building is different
from what would be allowed and say in a taller mixed use or a commercial office
area where there you would have a lot more floor area ratio to allow for more
beds. And this ties into that what we were just discussing right so let's say
you know the cap the cap as to the state you know depending on how large the
facility is would be X if we were to use the floor area ratio determination that
would actually probably give leeway to increase the number of beds right? It
would give leeway to increase the number of beds and increase the building
intensity meaning the floor meaning the height meaning how big of the lot
coverage would be would be even more it would be greater okay thank you I would
just add if I'm not mistaken my perception of the state organization
involvements is around need and not around building side size so they're
looking at demographic need in your community how many beds are needed for
X kind of on the parking question it looks like the was proposed for Walnut
Creek is in the same range as the other cities you looked at perhaps a little
higher per employee a little lower per bed but would you consider that to be
basically the same range as the others yeah we were kind of in the middle
between the other cities. For the six and under does that include employees or
just the residents? So let me just make sure here. Based in our zoning code it's
just six residents. The reason I ask is because I have a family that works in one of
and they sleep there but they're not technically a resident so that's why I
was one because a lot of you know you have to sleep there to take care of the
patients so as I'm wondering but okay it's the actual patients yes questions I
will ask what they're open up to public hearing so I won't remember the public
here? Would you like to speak on this matter? It's good entree in, so it's exactly what I'm
talking about. My name is Peter Gillis, good evening everybody. I'm here on behalf
of the owner of 2643 Larky Lane here in Walnut Creek. You all, the letter you're
talking about, it was sent by their legal counsel and they wanted me to
reiterate so I'm a land broker I work with a lot of developers and this asset
class has become very popular because it's needed with the aging population
and there is an economies of scale and what they worry about with this with a
to get enough beds you know they're not looking to do a high-rise thousand bed
kind of thing that doesn't fit with the with the model but they need enough
because it's so expensive to build these days that they need that. So let's
see, so in this letter what they really wanted to urge was the Planning
Commission and the City Council to slightly modify the language to clarify
the maximum permitted density on residential care facilities to continue
to be governed by an FAR. So in these residential districts it can really
limit you. I don't know if you guys have ever had to visit anyone in one of these
facilities yet they but it's parking really dictates the amount of beds that
we find on these so so that is really you guys kind of covered it all and I
appreciate it they did give some precedents and as you said those were
into more of a commercial but this one is a residential zone it's kind of an
odd lot it used to have a seven lot subdivision on it that was very peculiar
laid out and so this would really maximize the lot doesn't affect the
neighbors hardly at all and you know these type of facilities don't generate
a tremendous amount of traffic so I think that's it appreciate your time
thank you any questions the speaker I'll close the public hearing or close the
public comment and bring it back to the commission for comments or motions Mr.
Campbell I guess I I'm still thinking about this particular scenario that the
letter is referring to what what it sounds like they're asking for is for an
RCH to use the FAR which we don't normally do so that would be a big
change so that's that would require staff to go back and study the issue am
I understand that correctly? I believe that the distinction is is where it is.
Right, oh right. Not whether it's six or yes. So right so there's is in a
residential district which we don't usually use FAR for. I think the idea is
that it's in a residential district where we don't use FAR for residences
And it's supposed to fit in with the residential community that the same kinds of setbacks
and heights and so forth, limitations and constraints would apply.
Now, whether it allows you more or less space sounds like it probably allows you less.
But that's the intent is to keep consistent with the…
With the residential neighborhood.
The whole point is for it to feel residential when someone moves into one of those facilities
right. If I make a comment that's also you want to keep the neighborhood to
look the same to an extent and keep the character of the neighborhood otherwise
we start having all sorts of things going on. Vice Chair Nitti. I have
concerns if we were to use FAR because of the way that you apply FAR versus a
density. Density's objective standards has setbacks and so one thing that I was
thinking about, Chip, when you said that state density bonus law, so in theory if
someone would apply an FAR they could use a waiver to waive out of a height
limitation and say that it physically precludes and so it just it
makes me nervous to not... I think if someone, if the fact that state
density bonus law does apply to RCF or RCH then in theory if someone wanted to increase
the density instead of using an FAR they could just apply a density bonus and get more density
but still keeping some objective standards like setbacks that is not going to feel like
tower that's completely overbearing because I think FAR coupled with state
density might be a little bit I don't know I'm just I'm trying I'm trying to
think of how how it how it would still emulate residential to to fit in that
area and I can't think of a way that it would otherwise. As far as the mechanism
for density bonus that is based on units is not correct and that's and that's
gonna be a challenge but before before we discuss that we should we the
difference between that issue here is is what we're talking about density but
density is really not the issue it's how big is the box and and the box is either
they're gonna be use an FAR standard or it's gonna use a building height set
with coverage and setback standard and that's that's what we're talking about
yeah if they build if you build one building and have 30 beds in it it's one
unit it's one that's fair it's one unit yeah okay so density is really not at
issue yeah if there's a density bonus we're gonna have to cross that bridge
when we get there. Okay, I've only used FAR when designing commercial because it's been a box,
a big box that's that's that we add the gross square feet. That's the way I've always calculated
the FAR. Mr. Klopp. The one question I had was related to parking and I'm unsure how that relates
to using FAR, but he described his one of the barriers as the number of parking
slots required, and we're proposing a reduction in a standard currently, so
shouldn't that help him? I don't quite understand how those two arguments go
together, but they are linked together in one of his sentences. So the change
would actually allow for more parking? Right. Oh, I see. Especially in the commercial
zones and non-residential zones.
Any further discussion or emotion?
Are you so kind?
Just to clarify on the parking, I'm
reading this as in residential zones would stay the same,
where they're consistent with the underlying zoning district.
It's the non-residential zones that our chart applies to.
That's correct.
OK.
Thank you.
I'd like to, oh my god, I'm having a brain fart,
to approve the, this is approval, not recommendation.
This is a recommendation of the city council.
Apologies.
I'd like to move on to a recommendation
for an ordinance of the city council,
the city of Walnut Creek amending various sections
of title 10, chapter two zoning
of the Walnut Creek Municipal Code
to implement housing element program H-3.H regarding
residential care facilities to clarify accessory dwelling
unit, am I reading the right thing,
regulations consistent with state law,
and to make minor code cleanup edits.
Thank you.
Second.
We have any further discussion on the motion?
Call the roll.
We'll do a roll call vote.
Vice Chair Knight?
Yes.
Commissioner Strongman?
Yes.
Commissioner Moran?
Yes.
Commissioner Count?
Yes.
Commissioner Guac?
Yes.
Commissioner Klopp?
Yes.
And Chair Anderson?
Yes.
That motion carries, 7-0.
Very good.
Move on to our last item tonight, which
is continuing retrochunky to a date certain.
I will not ask if there's anyone who wishes to speak on this.
Well, we'll, OK.
So we open the item.
OK.
I'm sorry.
Open the item, yes.
Open the public hearing or public comment and close that.
And any discussion about the?
So you need a motion?
So I need a motion, yes.
I move that we continue item 4B, retro junkie,
to the meeting of November 13, 2025.
Thank you.
I'll second that.
OK.
We have a motion and a second.
And call the roll.
Commissioner Klop?
Yes.
Commissioner Strongman?
Yes.
Commissioner Moran?
Here.
Yes.
Sorry.
Commissioner Callan?
Yes.
Commissioner Klop?
Yes.
And Vice Chair Knighting?
Yes.
Chair Anderson?
Yes.
OK, motion carries.
That item is continued to November 13.
Item 5 is commissioning considerations
for items that are not required to be public notice,
but where you think some discussion might
be helpful, any commissioner considerations.
Not, we move on to number 6, which
is member and staff reports or announcements.
I have one.
Just a reminder that there is a marriage share breakfast
meeting on 10 24 at 7 30 a.m upstairs all are welcome
Vice Chair and I get to sit at the front table I was considered elsewhere
unless you'd like to sit with us that's fine too but yeah if you haven't been to
one of those it's it's interesting to hear about what everybody else is doing
and while the city council is up to everything,
getting a better sense of how things fit together,
and you got breakfast, so win-win.
I also just had a brief comment, that's okay.
I just wanted to say thank you to the staff
and the city council for moving forward this week
with the visioning and strategy for the general plan update,
really seeking a format that will encourage input
from a wide range of perspectives.
So, thank you, and I also wanted to say thank you
to our community long time champions of the arts
in Walnut Creek.
A number of us attended the on Broadway event
this past weekend, and it just made me so proud
to live in a city that values the arts,
champions the arts, and finds ways to bring people together
of all ages in such enriching ways.
So, I just wanted to share that.
Yeah, thanks.
I'd like to also thank our interim city attorney, who handled all of our legal questions tonight,
about any hesitation.
It's a lot of work.
Thank you for being here.
Alright, if there's nothing more, we stand adjourned.