Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Design Review Commission reviews Mitchell Townhomes plan; commissioners and neighbors raise traffic, tree and open-space concerns
Loading...
Summary
Design review commissioners provided feedback on a proposed 422-unit Mitchell Townhomes project in the Shadelands Business Park, highlighting tree removals, pedestrian access, long runs of driveway frontage, and the need for clearer programmed open space; the project is subject to an Environmental Impact Report and no formal action was taken.
The Walnut Creek Design Review Commission held an extended study-session review on June 18 of the Mitchell Townhomes proposal, a 422-unit townhome development proposed for the 22-acre Shadelands Executive Park site (application Y24-026). Commissioners did not vote on entitlements; instead they provided design and programmatic feedback and directed staff to forward comments to the Planning Commission as the EIR and entitlement process move forward.
The project and role of the design review commission Senior planner Simmer Gill presented the proposal and said the plan would demolish 11 office buildings to make way for 422 townhouse units arranged in 83 residential buildings across the 22-acre site. Gill said the development would provide 955 parking spaces (111 of them on internal roadways), propose 510 new trees and remove about 457 on-site trees; the city determined that an environmental impact report (EIR) is required to analyze potential impacts.
Gill also told the commission the project is being processed under the Housing Accountability Act and SB 330 (the 'builder's remedy' provisions) and that the developer is proposing 55 units (approximately 13% of the project) as low-income units. Gill said the draft EIR is in preparation and that design review comments would be forwarded to the Planning Commission after the EIR is circulated.
Design and program details presented The applicant, Jonathan Fern of Signature Development Group, and his consultant team described a three-story, two-neighborhood layout with two architectural style families and eight distinct floor plans. Building heights range from about 38 to 40 feet; unit sizes vary from roughly 1,288 to 2,157 square feet, with two- to four-bedroom plans. Fern said the project will be fully electric, include EV charging "day 1" for units, be solar-ready, and include 30 bicycle parking spaces sprinkled through the site.
Civil engineer Megan Alfarness (CBG) explained that hydro-modification is proposed via an underground storage vault in the northwest portion of the site and that bioretention areas would be used for stormwater treatment; she characterized silver-cell infiltration systems as typically more expensive and often lined, reducing infiltration potential.
Public comments and concerns More than half the meeting time was taken by public comment focused on traffic, tree removal, and safety for seniors and children: - Ed Sheppard, a Woodlands resident, warned of added traffic congestion and predicted the development could add many vehicle trips to local roads used to reach Shadelands businesses. - Patty Bentbender, chair of the ViaMonte resident council (a senior living community adjacent to Shadelands), said ViaMonte residents were concerned about safety where the easternmost project driveway would align with ViaMonte's garage exit and asked that drive access be shifted west. - Wayne Morris, representing a ViaMonte subcommittee, criticized the plan's tree removals and told commissioners that 103 coast redwoods on the property would be reduced to seven preserved redwoods in the proposal; he said many of the trees are mature and in good condition and urged retention. - Other residents supported the project as infill housing that can reduce sprawl and increase access to transit and services.
Commissioner and staff feedback Commissioners and staff asked detailed questions about the central open-space program, Paseo widths, the spacing between front-facing units (roughly 21'2 feet in many paseo areas), the location of affordable units (Gill said they are dispersed throughout the site by plan and bedroom type), accessibility (10% of units are designated accessible), the planned bike lanes and proposed roundabout at the Shadelands/ViaMonte intersection as a possible mitigation measure, and emergency/fire access.
Commissioners repeatedly asked the applicant to: - refine programming in common open spaces so they serve families and seniors (play space, shade, and clearly usable lawns rather than primarily bioretention swales); - reconsider long runs of garage entries and front-facing driveways to reduce the perceived auto-first character and improve pedestrian comfort (suggestions included trellises, additional material variation, or other softening); - explore ways to reduce stormwater infrastructure footprint or make bioretention areas more usable while preserving mature trees where feasible; and - clarify pedestrian connectivity and wayfinding so the central spine feels like a prominent public connector rather than a sequence of private frontages.
Next steps No formal entitlements were approved by the commission. Staff reiterated the project requires a draft EIR, which will be released for public comment later in 2025; after circulation of the draft and final EIR, the Planning Commission and City Council will consider required entitlements. The design review commission's comments were recorded for the Planning Commission packet. The applicant indicated a target entitlements schedule in late 2025 for Planning Commission and City Council consideration, subject to completion of the EIR.
Unresolved issues raised at the study session included traffic impacts on Shadelands/Mitchell/Oak Grove, the scope and preservation of mature redwoods and other trees, the usability of stormwater treatment areas as public open space, and fine-grain choices about massing and interiors of garage-entry blocks.
