Walnut Creek Planning Commission Meeting: August 13, 2026
Walnut Creek Planning Commission Meeting – August 13, 2026
The Walnut Creek Planning Commission held a regular meeting on August 13, 2026, at 6:00 PM in the Council Chamber. The meeting included two public hearings: an appeal of a tree removal permit for two Coast Redwood trees at 1085 Hacienda Drive, and proposed zoning text amendments regarding accessory dwelling units (ADUs), public hearing notices, and planned development permits. The commission also received updates on upcoming meetings and the General Plan update.
Public Hearing: Tree Removal Appeal (TR-26068-E) at 1085 Hacienda Drive
The commission considered an appeal filed by Carissa Harris Adamson, a neighbor, challenging the Public Works Director's approval of a tree removal permit to remove two of three Coast Redwood trees in the backyard of 1085 Hacienda Drive. The appellant argued that the trees were mature, healthy, and highly visible from the neighborhood, providing shade and cooling benefits. She contended that damage to fencing and hardscape could be addressed through less drastic measures and that the city had not provided a detailed arborist report. She requested a pause pending further information.
Property owner Ari Sagafi stated that the trees were causing damage to hardscape and underground pipes, leading to sewage backups in the yard. She noted that the city arborist had approved removal based on good forestry practices, as the two smaller trees (Trees 1 and 3) were competing with the largest, healthiest tree (Tree 2). She emphasized that removing only the problematic trees would allow the remaining redwood to thrive and reduce property damage.
Staff (Associate Planner Gerardo Victoria and Assistant Public Works Director Mike Vickers) recommended denying the appeal, citing the arborist's findings and the need to thin overcrowded trees to support long-term forest health. They noted that the arborist was not consulted again after the appeal, but the existing findings supported removal.
During commission discussion, members expressed concerns about the lack of a formal written arborist report and the new information about pipe damage. However, after deliberation, the commission voted to trust the city's established process and the arborist's recommendation.
Key Outcome: Motion to deny the appeal and uphold the tree removal permit passed 5-1, with Commissioner Cowan dissenting. Commissioner Strongman made the motion, seconded by Commissioner Anderson.
Public Hearing: Zoning Text Amendments (ADU, Notices, Housing Element Program H-4.I)
Associate Planner Allison Rustick presented three sets of amendments to the Walnut Creek Zoning Ordinance: (1) updates to ADU regulations to align with new state law, including allowing up to four accessory dwellings on single-family lots (one ADU subject to local standards, two state-exempt ADUs, and one junior ADU); (2) clarification and reorganization of public hearing notice requirements; and (3) removal of the Planned Development Permit (PDP) requirement for residential projects in the Mixed-Use (MU) and High Density Residential (MHD) Planned Development districts, as required by Housing Element Program H-4.I. The amendments do not change development capacity but streamline the review process. Staff also noted a clerical error referring to "Walnut Municipal Code" instead of "Walnut Creek Municipal Code" in the draft ordinance.
No members of the public spoke. The commission asked clarifying questions about the MHD district location and the effect on other planned development zones.
Key Outcome: The commission voted unanimously to adopt the resolution recommending the City Council approve the ordinance, including the clerical corrections. The motion was made by Commissioner Strongman and seconded by Commissioner Anderson.
Commission Considerations and Reports
Staff provided an update on the planning commission schedule through October 22, 2026, including a joint meeting with the Design Review Commission on that date. They also announced General Plan update pop-up events, including one at Broadway Plaza.
Key Outcomes Summary
- Tree removal appeal denied (5-1). The permit for removal of two Coast Redwood trees at 1085 Hacienda Drive is upheld.
- Zoning text amendments recommended to City Council (unanimous).
- The commission will receive combined schedules of planning and design review commission meetings going forward.
Meeting Transcript
Yes. Commissioner Anderson. Here. Commissioner Moran? Here. Commissioner Cow? Here. Commissioner Strongman. Here. Commissioner Quok. Let me know in advance that he could not attend this evening. Vice Chair Claw here. And Chair Needing. Here. Thank you. I don't see anything, but I'd like to ask, do we have anything on the consent calendar? We do not. I have some speaker identification cards, but I did want to make it clear that there are two opportunities for the public to be able to provide public comment. The first is during each item of the agenda, which we have, which you should have before you. And the second part is right now where you can uh provide a comment on things that are not on the agenda that pertain to the purview of the planning commission. So does anybody have any comments that are not on the agenda? No. Okay. Just wanted to check. And now I'd like to ask any of the commissioners if they've had any ex parte communication. Lots of shaking heads, so that is a no. So now I'm going to move on to item number four, which is the public hearings. 4A is a tree removal at 1085 Hacienda Drive. Tree removal permit TR26068. And does staff have a presentation? Yes, we do. In just a moment. Okay. Okay, good evening, Planned Commissioners. My name is Gerardo Victoria. Associate Planner Community Development. The project before you today is a true removal appeal located at 1085 Hacienda Drive. This is where 1085 Hacienda Drive is located. And the trees outlined in red here are the ones proposed or were approved for removal by the public works department right here. This is the actual site plan that was provided in the application. And you'll note three total trees in the rear yard. Two were approved for removal by the public works director. So two Coast Redwood trees were approved for removal. And tree number three, located uh south of tree number one was approved for removal for a good forestry practices. And as you can see, the pictures uh from the backyard of the property owner. The appellant appealed the approval on May 6th, and the reason for the appeal was tree number one was on a shared property line, and tree number three was a mature tree that provided benefits to the neighborhood. The tree preservation ordinance findings that the director shall grant the permit if he or she makes any of the following findings. In considering the appeal, the appellant body shall also apply the standards set forth below. That the tree's condition such as disease, uh general health issues, damage, public nuisance warrants removal and cannot be remedied through list drastic means. Uh, that the tree hosts a parasitic plant and or a pest or disease that may endanger other trees, uh, good forestry practices, and that the tree has been confirmed as a Tasmanian bluegum or monterey pine.
openpublica.com