Walnut Creek planning commission finds draft 2026–2035 CIP in conformance with general plan, adopts resolution

The Walnut Creek Planning Commission voted unanimously April 24 to adopt a resolution finding the city’s draft 2026–2035 10-year Capital Investment Program (CIP) in conformance with the Walnut Creek General Plan.

Alex Wong, senior civil engineer with the city’s capital improvement program, presented the draft CIP and described it as a 10-year planning tool organized into five two-year cycles that informs the annual capital budget and coordinates projects and grant opportunities with outside partners such as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), Caltrans and the county. "The goal here tonight is to receive your concurrence that the CIP conforms to and supports the current general plan," Wong said.

The CIP highlights projects across asset management, transportation, parks and open space, climate resiliency and facilities. Notable items presented include the Heather Farm Aquatic and Community Center (a replacement for the Clark Swim Center and Heather Farm Community Center, with construction scheduled in 2026); an Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) grant-funded package to improve Broadway with a road diet and better pedestrian and bicycle access connecting North Downtown to the core downtown; a Class I pedestrian and bicycle facility on Ignacio Valley Road from the Iron Horse Trail to Via Monte; a downtown parking management system replacement; intersection improvements at Main & Cypress and Main & Bonanza; an Olympic Corridor trail connection tying the Iron Horse Trail to the Olympic Boulevard corridor; and a proposed creek and wetland restoration project in the 2034–35 cycle.

Wong and commissioners noted that some projects are contingent on funding and that programmed demand does not guarantee available funds; several projects have been deferred to later cycles pending financing. Wong said the CIP is updated alongside the capital budget and that the first two-year cycle includes the proposed capital budget that will be forwarded to the City Council for final adoption.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions about specific projects and program details. Commissioner Strongman asked whether the Olympic Corridor item included both design and construction; Wong replied the preferred route has not been finalized and that the CIP separates design and construction components. Commissioner Strongman also asked about a bridge replacement on South Main; Wong confirmed that replacement is programmed in the upcoming cycle and will be part of the capital budget.

Commissioner Strongman asked about a synthetic turf replacement programmed for roughly 2034–35; staff said synthetic fields typically have about a 10-year service life and the replacement timing reflects that lifecycle. Commissioner Kwok asked what the AHSC acronym meant; a staff member confirmed it stands for Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities grant, adding the grant work will coordinate with other projects, including the DMV project, to fund Broadway improvements.

Commissioner Clark, identifying herself as relatively new to the commission, suggested staff include brief descriptive sentences for project titles in published CIP documents so reviewers can more easily assess general-plan conformance. Wong said the full CIP document will include detailed descriptions for each project when published.

Vice Chair Knighting raised questions about Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and downtown communications infrastructure; staff said the related project funds improved communications (fiber) to traffic signal cabinets and other traffic system components rather than traditional TDM incentives. Commissioners also discussed early-stage work on an EV charging master plan for the city; staff said the plan will consider fleet needs and public charging but details are still under development.

One commissioner cautioned that large creek and wetland restoration efforts can trigger resource permits including California Department of Fish and Wildlife review and potential compensatory-mitigation requirements; the commissioner urged the city to account for permitting complexity and potential mitigation costs. A staff member noted the wetland restoration project is programmed late in the CIP (2034–35), which allows time for permitting and design.

There was no public comment. The commission closed the public hearing and Chair Anderson called for a motion. A motion to adopt a resolution by the Planning Commission finding the draft 2026–2035 CIP in conformance with the General Plan was made, seconded and approved on a roll call vote: Commissioner Kwok — yes; Commissioner Strongman — yes; Commissioner Klopp — yes; Vice Chair Knighting — yes; Chair Anderson — yes. The commission forwarded its concurrence to the City Council for consideration as part of the capital budget and CIP adoption process.

The commission also used the meeting to remind the public about open recruitment for several Walnut Creek commissions, with an application deadline announced by the city clerk. The meeting record indicates the staff report contained a modest amendment to a sequencing table but not to the proposed resolution.

What happens next: the Planning Commission’s resolution of conformance and the proposed first-cycle capital budget will go to the Walnut Creek City Council for review and final adoption; project scheduling and commencement will depend on council action, available funding and any required external permits or environmental approvals.