Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the uh October 9th meeting of the Walnut Creek Planning Commission. And uh ask the secretary to call the role. Uh thank you, Chair. Uh Commissioner Moran here, Commissioner Count here, Commissioner Strongman here, Commissioner Quac here, Commissioner Klopp here, Vice Chair Knighting here, and Chair Anderson here, Gangzel here. We have quorum. Okay. Thank you. Uh, next on the agenda is the consent calendar. I understand we have proposal to move one of the items.

Uh, staff would recommend that the uh, planning commission move item 4C to the consent calendar to join the count the uh, the proposed 2026 commission and council calendar. The uh, the item to be moved would be the uh, Chowry new single family residence. Is anyone here to speak on that matter? No. Sorry, you're not going to speak on that matter. Okay. Um, then I would entertain a motion to move that to the consent calendar. I uh move that we move item move that we move item four 4 B 4 C 4 C C 4 C to the consent calendar.

Second. You call the RO. Uh, Commissioner Klopp, yes. Commissioner Strongman, yes. Commissioner Moran, yes. Commissioner Count, yes. Commissioner Quac, yes. Uh, Commissioner, let's see. Vice Chair Knight, yes. Chair Anderson, yes. Did I miss anybody? I don't think so. Okay. Okay. Motion carries. Right. So, we now have two items on the consent calendar. And uh is there any uh I move to approve the consent calendar. All right. Any discussion on the motion or second? I thought we moved second.

Okay. Any discussion on the All right. If not, we call the role on the consent calendar. Yeah. I'm sorry. Who made the motion? Uh Commissioner Clock. No, it was Commissioner Count. Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Count. Yes. Commissioner Strongman. Yes. Commissioner Moran. Yes. Commissioner Quac. Yes. Commissioner Klopp. Yes. Vice Chair Knighting. Yes. And Chair Anderson. Yes. Motion carries.

Very good. And we move to public communications. There are two points at which you have as members of the public a chance to speak. Uh one is uh on a particular matter that's on the agenda. Uh at this point uh 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? Not then uh we will move on to the public hearings. Uh first is the zoning text amendment uh regarding the uh residential care facilities. have a staff report.

Okay, great. Thank you. Good evening, Chairperson Anderson and members of the commission. I'm Crystal Dcastro, 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 lowincome households, seniors, and the local critical workforce. Consistent 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 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. A 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 RCFs 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 75 spaces per employee while the maintaining the current 0.25 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 one provides a moderate reduction in total parking. It helps avoid overparking 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 not based is is on based on coverage setbacks and height not far in non non-residential zones such as commercial zones or mixeduse 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. Um adding the definition for objective standards is one of um the cleanup items and that is just to be consistent with what the state allows and what is defined by the state. Next is um removing an outdated summary use table. Um by removing this table it avoids redundancy and also we have the data parcel viewer now available online that um the community can refer to. And lastly with each zoning district in the chapter it lists what the uses are that are allowed. Um one more thing is the ADU ordinance update. The update is to align with state law as it clarifies provisions for occupancy, fire 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 amendments exempt from SQUA and adopt the ordinance. Staff is available for any questions. questions of staff. Well, let me let me ask a question. Um the uh the letter that we got regarding the uh

using the F in residential zones, they mentioned several um I guess proposing them as precedents where uh they'd use F for it. Um, but as I understand, all of those were in commercial zones. Yes, they were in PDs, so they weren't in residential zoning. Okay. They were office commercial and and having RC RF RCFs in uh um commercial zones uh evaluated one way and having them in residential zones evaluated a separate way. That all that complies with the state law. That would comply with the state law. Okay. Thank you.

Yes. What else? Mr. Count. Um, so in the letter that we received, there were two um sections that they suggested. One was for um 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. it 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 um I can jump on it okay

so um for non-residential districts and then let's go back to zoning um let's go back to the general plan the general plan land use designations um prescribes a range of F for non-residential land use designations and a range of densities for residential density for residential uh land uses. Uh so in in doing so the um the zoning code picks up the same thing and and drills down a little bit but what it does I think the the different word here is maximum. So it's that would that would be a minor change. I mean if you if 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. Let let me add to that by saying that um the state also recently classified RCFs as um uh subject to utilizing density bonus. So they are residents. So

Commissioner Moran, thank you. I the I I caught a line in there saying that RCF's bedc count was regulated by the state. I'm assuming it was the the department of of that. Yes. Is there do you know what that cap is? Because I'm what I'm wondering is you know RC uh eight the the smaller version is six or less but it's seven to we don't know or yes they have their regulations for that. 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 going to put 20 beds in there more than likely, but I wish I knew, you know. 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 the confines of that building is different from what would be allowed say in a taller mixeduse or a commercial office area where there would have a lot more floor area ratio to allow for more beds.

And this ties into the 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 uh organization involvements is around need and not around building side size. So they're looking at need, demographic need in your community. How many beds are needed for X kind of use? So,

uh, on the parking question, um, it looks like the, uh, what's proposed for Walnut Creek is in the same range as the other cities you looked at. Um, perhaps a little uh, higher per employee, but a little lower per bed. Um, but would you consider that to be basically in the same range as the others? Yeah, we were kind of in the middle. Okay. Between the other cities. Okay. Vice chair.

Um, 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. And the reason I ask is cuz um I have family that works in one of these and they sleep there but they're not technically a resident. So that's why I was wonder because a lot of you you have to sleep there to take care of the patients. So that's I'm I'm wondering but Okay. It's the actual patients.

Yes. Okay. Any other questions? Um, I will ask if there open up the public hearing. Uh, only one member of the public here. Would you like to speak on this matter? I would love to.

All right. It's a 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. Um you all the letter you're talking about it was sent by their legal council and they wanted me to reiterate. So um 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 uh 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 um 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 they need that. So, um, 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 a an F. So, in these residential districts, um, it can really limit you. I don't if you guys have ever had to visit anyone in one of these facilities yet. uh uh they but it's parking really dictates the amount of beds um 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 uh precedent and as you said those were in more of a commercial, but this one is a residential zone. It's kind of an odd lot. that used to have a seven lot subdivision on it that was very peculiarly laid out. And so this would really maximize the lot. Um doesn't affect uh 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. Okay. Any questions for the speaker? Thank you. I'll close the public hearing or close the public comment and uh bring it back to the the commission for comments or motions.

Mr. C. Um I guess I I'm still thinking about this particular scenario um that the letter is referring to. Um, what I what it sounds like they're asking for is for an RCH to use the F, 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 understanding that? Is that correct? I believe that the that the distinction is uh is is where it is, right? Oh, right. Not not whether it's six or Yes. less than more than so right. So theirs is in a residential district which we don't usually use F for.

Um I think the the idea is that it's in a residential district where we don't use F for residences. Um and it's supposed to fit in with the residential community that the same kinds of setbacks and you know heights and so forth limitations and constraints would would apply. Um, now whether that allows you more or less space sounds like it probably allows you less. Um, but that's the intent is to to keep uh consistent with the with a residential neighborhood. You want people to the whole point is for it to feel residential when someone moves into one of those facilities.

Right. Okay. And um 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. Yeah. Vice chair need

um I have concerns if we were to use F because of the way that you apply F 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 F, they could use a waiver to wave out of a height limitation and right and say that it physically precludes. And so it just it makes me nervous to not I I think if someone if some if the fact that state state density bonus law does apply to RCF or RCH then in theory if someone wanted to increase the density instead of using an F they could just apply a density bonus and get more density but still keeping some objective standards like like setbacks that is not going to feel like a tower that's completely overbearing because I think F 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 the mechanism for density bonus that that is based on units is it not correct and that's and that's going to be a challenge. Um but before before we discuss that we should we we um that issue here is is what we're 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 going to be use an F standard or it's going to use a building height

set coverage and setback standard. And that's that's what we're talking about. If 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. If there's a density bonus, we're going to have to cross that bridge when we get there. Okay. I've only used F when designing commercial. Yeah. Um because it's been a box a big box that's that's that's that we add the gross square feet. That's the way I've always calculated the F. Commissioner Club,

the one question I had was related to parking and I'm not unsure how that relates to using F, 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 I I don't 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. Rather than less, especially in the commercial zones and non-residential zones. Thank you.

Right. Any further discussion or a motion? you you so kind just just to clarify on the parking the uh 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. Oh, that's right. That's correct. Okay. Thank you for catching that.

Oh, sorry. Um, I'd like to um Oh my god, I'm having a brain fart. To to approve the This is This is approval, not recommendation. This is a recommendation of the city council.

Apologies. like to move forward to recommendation for an ordinance of the city council, the city of Walnut Creek, amending various sections of title 10, chapter 2, zoning of the Walner 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 a That was a big one. Any further discussion on the motion?

Call the roll. We'll do a roll call vote. Uh Vice Chair Knight, yes. Commissioner Strongman, uh yes. Commissioner Moran, yes. Commissioner K, yes. Commissioner Quac, yes. Commissioner Klopp. Yes. And Chair Anderson. Yes. That motion carries. 70. Very good. Uh move on to our last item tonight, which is uh continuing uh retro junkie to a date certain. I will not ask if there are anyone who wishes to speak on this. Well, we we'll we'll Okay. So, we open the item.

Okay. Open. I'm sorry. Open the item. Yes. Open the public hearing and or public comment and close that. Um and uh any discussion about the So, you need a motion. So, I need a motion. Yes. I move that we continue item uh 4B, retrochunkie, to the meeting of November 13th, 2025. Thank you. I'll I'll second that. Okay, we have a motion and a second and Okay, call the roll. Um, Commissioner Klopp, yes. Commissioner Strongman, yes. Commissioner Moran, here. Yes. Sorry. Commissioner Count, yes.

Commissioner Kop, yes. And Vice Chair Knighting? Yes. Chair Anderson? Yes. Okay. Motion carries. That item is continued to November 13th. Okay. Um item five is commission 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 six which is member and staff reports or announcements. I have one uh just a reminder that there is a marriage chair breakfast uh meeting on 10:24 at 7:30 a.m. upstairs.

Okay. All are welcome. Um vice chair and I get to sit at the front table. I'm just going to sit elsewhere. Unless you'd like to sit with us, that's fine, too. Um but uh yeah, if you haven't been to one of those, it's uh um it's interesting to hear about what everybody else is doing and uh how the city council is up to, how everything get a better sense of how things fit together and you get breakfast. So, it's a win-win.

I also just had a brief comment if that's okay. Um, I just wanted to say thank you to the staff and the city council uh for moving forward uh this week with the visioning and strategy for the general plan update. Um, really seeking a format that will encourage input from a wide range of perspectives. So, thank you. Um, and I also wanted to say thank you to our community, longtime champion of champions of the arts in Walnut Creek. Um, a number of us attended the on Broadway event this past weekend. Um, and it just 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 um, in such enriching ways. So, I just wanted to share that. Um, yeah, thanks.

Also, I'd like to also thank our interim city attorney who handled all of our legal questions tonight without any hesitation. It's a lot of work. Yeah. Thank you for being here. All right. Uh if there's nothing more, uh we stand adjourned. 29 minutes.

Who had 30 minutes? [Music] [Music] [Music]