Design review commission reviews Sierra Garden proposal for 87 affordable apartments; neighbors raise parking and privacy concerns

The Walnut Creek Design Review Commission on Sept. 3 heard a presentation and public comments on a proposed six‑story, 87‑unit affordable housing project at 150 Sierra Drive that would replace an existing 29‑unit development. Staff said the project is being processed using state housing laws and the state’s density‑bonus provisions; the design review hearing was an opportunity for commissioners to provide feedback before the Planning Commission considers entitlements.

Simmer Gill, senior planner, said the 1.4‑acre site is zoned planned development with a general plan designation of “multifamily very high density” and is listed in the city’s housing inventory. “The request tonight is to demolish the existing 29 unit structures, to construct the new 6 story 87 unit affordable development,” Gill said. The applicant, Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (SAHA), represented by Jonathan Asteman, described the project as 100% affordable and noted SAHA’s prior Walnut Creek projects.

Project details presented to the commission include a mix of one‑, two‑ and three‑bedroom units; 58 new surface parking stalls; preservation of an existing pool at the rear; permeable paving in parking areas; and new landscaping with 42 replacement trees proposed. Staff said the applicant requests four waivers from city development standards and two concessions under the state density‑bonus law. Gill also said the project is processed under the Housing Accountability Act (SB 330) and noted that, under state density‑bonus rules, an 80% density increase could allow up to 178 units on the site, but the applicant proposes 87 units.

Staff and the applicant described tree removals and protection plans: 17 on‑site trees would be removed (some undersized trees removed without permit), and four trees—identified as Siberian elm, plum, palm and privet—require approval because they meet the city’s tree thresholds. The project also requires drip‑line encroachment review for neighboring trees; staff said the city arborist supports removal of a tree that conflicts with emergency vehicle access.

Public commenters, including several neighbors, supported affordable housing in general but raised consistent concerns about parking, traffic, building height, shading and privacy. Resident commenters and adjacent property owners said the neighborhood already experiences heavy on‑street parking and peak‑hour congestion near WCI and Las Lomas schools and that a six‑story building will increase parking demand and shade nearby yards. One longtime resident who said he lives in the existing Sierra Garden Apartments called the current buildings “aging” and supported rebuilding; others—neighbors and homeowners—said the scale and height would negatively affect privacy, sunlight and property values.

Applicants and the architect, Pedram Farsh Bandy of David Baker Architects, described design goals emphasizing textured, durable materials, “bookend” massing to break down bulk and outdoor resident amenities including a community room that opens to a garden and a restored pool. Bandy said the plan provides a landscaped setback of roughly 30 to 40 feet from the front property line where 15 feet is required, intended to create a transition between the sidewalk and the building.

Commissioners generally praised elements of the design and the amount of open space but urged changes before Planning Commission review. Recurring requests from commissioners included: more and larger trees to provide screening and shade; refinement of pedestrian circulation (making routes to the sidewalk and gardens more direct); a shade study and cross‑section drawings showing distances to neighboring properties; material and color adjustments to reduce expansive white surfaces and to make the building feel more “organic” or compatible with surrounding lower‑rise development; and clearer documentation of parking, bicycle parking and loading arrangements.

Staff and the applicant noted the project had received several neighborhood letters (staff said about five letters) opposing the application for reasons including density and traffic; staff said those letters will be summarized and addressed in the Planning Commission report. Commissioners did not take a formal vote on entitlements at the design hearing; staff’s stated recommendation was that the Design Review Commission provide comments on design, landscaping and tree removal requests and forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission. The hearing closed after commissioners’ comments and direction to staff and the applicant.