The Walnut Creek Planning Commission on Oct. 9 recommended that the City Council adopt zoning code changes intended to make it easier to site residential care facilities for seniors and other vulnerable populations and to reduce parking burdens on those developments.

Crystal DeCastro, principal planner in the Community Development Department, told the commission that “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.” She described the package as an implementation step for the city’s housing element program and said staff recommends the commission find the amendments exempt from CEQA and forward the ordinance to the City Council.

The ordinance recommended by the commission would: update definitions to distinguish small residential care homes (RCH) from larger residential care facilities (RCF); allow RCFs where RCHs are allowed; apply the same parking standards to RCFs in residential zones as to RCHs; and reduce employee parking in nonresidential zones from 1 space per employee to 0.75 spaces per employee while maintaining the existing 0.25 spaces-per-bed requirement. DeCastro said staff evaluated three alternatives and compared parking standards in Dublin, Pleasanton and Pleasant Hill, and reviewed four existing RCFs in Walnut Creek.

DeCastro explained the definitions in the code: “RCH refers to small facilities that serve 6 or fewer individuals allowed by right in all residential zones per state law. RCF refers to larger facilities that serve 7 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.”

Commissioners questioned whether to add floor area ratio (FAR) as a governing measure in residential zones. Several commissioners, and a public commenter who represents a property owner, said using FAR can allow a larger building “box” and potentially more beds or greater height than the current standards of setbacks, coverage and height. Commissioner Cowen and others said applying FAR in residential zones would be a significant change that would require additional study and legal review; Vice Chair Knighting and others argued that keeping objective standards such as setbacks and height helps preserve neighborhood character.

Peter Gillis, a land broker speaking for the owner of a parcel at 2643 Larky Lane, urged the commission to clarify that density for residential care facilities can be governed by FAR in residential districts, saying the asset class “has become very popular because it's needed with the aging population” and that developers “need enough because it's so expensive to build these days.” Gillis added that he did not expect “a high rise, thousand bed kinda thing” but said parking requirements often constrain the number of beds a developer can provide.

Commissioners also discussed the role of state regulations in capping or governing bed counts. DeCastro said the number of beds is controlled by the State Department of Social Services and that building size in residential zones is limited by setbacks, height and lot coverage. Commissioners noted that state density-bonus law could apply to residential care uses and that interaction between density bonuses and FAR or objective dimensional standards would need to be addressed if FAR were added for residential districts.

After discussion, the commission voted 7-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Title 10, Chapter 2 of the Walnut Creek Municipal Code to implement Housing Element Program H-3.h regarding residential care facilities, to clarify accessory dwelling unit regulations consistent with state law, and to make minor code cleanup edits. The roll call recorded all seven members voting yes. Staff had recommended the commission find the amendments exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and forward the ordinance to the council.

The matter now goes to the City Council for final action; staff said more study would be required if the council or commission elects to add FAR provisions for residential districts.