Design review commissioners review 74‑unit Mount Diablo mixed‑use project; drainage, fire access, parking raised as concerns

Walnut Creek City Design Review Commission members on (September) reviewed plans for a seven‑story, 74‑unit mixed‑use building proposed at 2094 Mount Diablo Boulevard and asked that the applicant share drainage details with neighbors and finalize fire‑access measures before the item goes to the Planning Commission.

Senior planner Simmer Gill introduced the project as a 74‑unit rental building with a 3,000‑square‑foot ground‑floor commercial space and an 861‑square‑foot childcare center toward the rear of the site. The developer proposes eight very‑low‑income units under the state density bonus law and is requesting seven density‑bonus waivers and two concessions, Gill said.

The project site is about 24,000 square feet in the city’s West Downtown Specific Plan area and is listed in the housing element inventory as an opportunity site. Gill said the project qualifies for a Class 32 CEQA infill exemption and is being reviewed under the Housing Accountability Act (SB 330). She said the general plan’s Mixed Use Commercial designation yields a base density of 49 units; the density bonus provisions add 25 units, allowing the applicant to build 74 units.

Architect Ben Johansen of LCA Architects said the design responds to the site’s long, narrow shape by orienting units to capture downtown and Mount Diablo views, and by providing private balconies for most units. “We feel like it’s a workable solution,” Johansen said of the proposed mechanical parking system, which the applicant says will provide 88 parking stalls in total — 8 surface stalls and 80 served by a mechanical parking system. Johansen also said a framed shade structure and covered balconies will provide usable outdoor space for residents.

Commissioners and public commenters focused on three main concerns: stormwater/drainage, fire‑ and emergency‑vehicle access, and safety/parking. A property owner who said they own the small brick building directly across the shared driveway urged the applicant to address lighting and surveillance and to resolve drainage so stormwater does not flow onto neighboring properties. “I just wanted to come here to raise my concerns about it and be sure that things were done in such a way that adjoining property owners are considered,” the property owner said.

Transportation Commissioner Charles Krelin, speaking during public comment, said he supported locating high‑density housing near transit but expected the development to generate more cars than the 88 provided and worried about spillover parking. “If I was a guessing man, there’d probably be 120 to 150 cars at this development,” Krelin said.

On operational details, staff and the applicant said: - Unit mix and size: a mix of studios, one‑bedroom and two‑bedroom units ranging roughly 591 to 1,500 square feet; eight units reserved for very‑low‑income households. - Parking and circulation: 88 parking stalls proposed (8 surface, 80 mechanical) and bicycle parking at one per unit. The applicant described the mechanical parking vendor’s estimated retrieval time of under one minute. - Landscaping and trees: four on‑site Bradford pear trees are proposed for removal (approved administratively by the city arborist for poor health); six off‑site trees along the west property line would be preserved (identified as trees 145–150). - Sidewalks and frontage: the West Downtown Specific Plan designates a 14‑foot sidewalk zone; the applicant requests a concession to retain the existing 10‑foot sidewalk and driveway apron to avoid the cost of frontage reconstruction and associated stormwater treatment facilities.

Commissioners recommended specific follow‑up prior to Planning Commission consideration: share the drainage plan with neighboring property owners; work with the fire district to confirm apparatus access and any required easements or alternative methods (the applicant said the fire marshal had allowed a “in and back out” maneuver and that an alternative methods application would add standpipes in stairwells); and provide more details about lighting or surveillance in the long driveway to improve pedestrian safety. Commissioners also suggested confirming sight‑triangles where the driveway and Mount Diablo Boulevard intersect and reconsidering the requested material concession to add a second exterior material on the frontage.

There was no formal vote during the Design Review Commission hearing. Staff recommended that commissioners provide feedback on site layout, building design and landscaping and forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission, which will be the decision‑making body for design review, the childcare conditional use permit, the tree/drip‑line encroachment permit and the density‑bonus concessions and waivers discussed at the hearing.

Next steps: the applicant will work with city staff and the fire district to resolve access and code questions and was urged to share the drainage plan with neighboring property owners before the Planning Commission hearing. The item will be scheduled for Planning Commission review; no final approvals were recorded at the Design Review Commission meeting.