Thu, Oct 23, 2025·Walnut Creek, California·City Council

Planning Commission Meeting on Zoning Amendments for Residential Care Facilities - October 23, 2025

Discussion Breakdown

Miscellaneous46%
Procedural18%
Parks and Recreation18%
Zoning and Planning5%
Youth Programs5%
Economic Development4%
Affordable Housing1%
Arts And Culture1%
Public Safety1%
Technology and Innovation1%

Summary

Planning Commission Meeting on Zoning Amendments for Residential Care Facilities

The Planning Commission convened to consider a resolution recommending City Council adopt zoning amendments related to residential care facilities, including updates to definitions and parking requirements, to align with state housing laws.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Peter Gillis, representing the owner of 2643 Larkey Lane, expressed support for clarifying that maximum density for residential care facilities should continue to be governed by floor area ratio (FAR) in residential zones, citing the need for feasibility and minimal neighborhood impact.

Discussion Items

  • Crystal DeCastro, Principal Planner, presented proposed amendments to update definitions for residential care homes (RCH, 6 or fewer individuals) and residential care facilities (RCF, 7 or more), allow RCFs in zones where RCHs are permitted, and reduce parking requirements in non-residential zones from 1 to 0.75 spaces per employee.
  • Commissioners discussed the addition of FAR in residential zones, with staff noting that FAR is not typically used for residential areas and would require further study. Questions were raised about state regulations on bed counts and parking comparisons with nearby cities.

Key Outcomes

  • The Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending City Council find the amendments exempt from CEQA and adopt the ordinance, with a unanimous 7-0 roll call vote.
  • Item 4B, regarding retro junkie, was continued to the meeting on November 13, 2025.

Meeting Transcript

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 uh we will move on. The public hearings. First is the zoning text amendment regarding the residential care facilities. Okay, great. Thank you. Good evening, Chairperson Anderson and members of the commission. I'm Crystal DeCastro, 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 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. 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 0.75 spaces per employee. While the 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 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 on based on coverage, setbacks, and height, not FAR. In not 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 um removing an outdated summary use table by removing this table that 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 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 CEQA and adopt the ordinance. Staff is available for any questions. Yes, proposing them as precedents where uh they'd use FAR for it.