Design Review Commission reviews Haven’s six‑lot subdivision plan at 1948 Third Avenue; neighbors raise trees, setback and parking concerns

The Walnut Creek Design Review Commission held a study session Dec. 18 on a proposed six‑lot single‑family subdivision at 1948 Third Avenue (project ID Y24051), commonly branded by the applicant as Magnolia Village. Staff and the applicant presented site plans, architecture, landscape proposals and waiver requests under the state density bonus program; commissioners provided design guidance and neighbors raised a range of concerns.

Gerardo Victoria, planner with the Community Development Department, described the project as a proposal to demolish an existing single‑family residence and accessory structures and construct six two‑story single‑family homes on a private street. The site has a general plan designation of Single Family Medium and is zoned R‑8. The applicant requests a density bonus to allow six units where the base density would accommodate five; the proposal includes 13 development‑standard waivers (examples noted in staff materials: minimum lot size reduced from 8,000 to about 2,600 sq ft; front yard setback reduced from 20 feet to 4 feet; right‑of‑way and road width reductions).

Victoria said the project initially proposed seven new trees but the applicant resubmitted materials indicating a reduction to five new trees; staff noted 28 trees exist on site and the proposal would remove 19, including three trees staff classified as highly protected in Walnut Creek (valley oak, coast live oak, California black walnut). The applicant proposes drought‑tolerant landscaping, three bioretention areas for stormwater treatment and one unit offered as an affordable unit as part of the density bonus.

Applicant Sia Vashmoazami of Haven Development said the proposal adds sidewalk frontage, a small park area adjacent to the bioretention features, six guest parking spaces and upgrades to the private drive. Architect and design team members described two architectural palettes (farmhouse and Bay Area styles) using hardy trim, Hardy board siding, stucco and stone veneer; staff said the proposal meets Walnut Creek’s objective design standards as presented.

Public comment included lengthy remarks from several adjacent property owners who said the project would: reduce tree canopy and harm protected trees; place new two‑story buildings very close to existing backyards (a neighbor said Lot 4 would sit about 3.5 feet from his deck); create shadows and loss of privacy; increase on‑street parking pressure in a neighborhood that currently lacks sidewalks; and raise drainage concerns related to grading and retaining walls. One commenter asked that an existing common fence not be removed and asked for stronger protection for mature redwoods on the site.

A city engineer, Ryan Cook, explained a technical constraint raised during questions: one proposed bioretention area lies within a sanitary sewer easement owned by Central San; Central San’s policy does not allow stormwater treatment features within its sanitary sewer easements because future sewer repairs could destroy required stormwater facilities and Central San would not be obligated to restore them. That constraint limits where the bioretention facilities may be sited on the parcel.

Commissioners and staff discussed multiple options and provided feedback to the applicant to address neighborhood concerns. The commission’s comments and requests for additional study or revision included: (1) evaluate whether moving a bioretention area to Lot 3 could allow Lots 4–6 to shift down the parcel and increase side setbacks for neighbors (commissioners asked staff and applicant to analyze feasibility), (2) consider native tree species for replacement plantings and increase the percentage of native species in the planting palette, (3) examine window placement and provide additional privacy treatments (glazing type or lowered sightlines) on side elevations that face adjacent yards, (4) consider replacing proposed wood retaining walls along steep property edges with concrete retaining walls where appropriate, (5) add architectural detailing and material variation on side elevations that face the street or neighbors, (6) study whether the affordable‑unit/density bonus configuration is economically necessary and, if not feasible, consider a reduced unit count to improve setbacks, (7) include conditions of approval that address trash storage and HOA responsibilities (staff and applicant said garages include designated trash space and applicants proposed an HOA to maintain front yards and common areas), (8) examine parking and circulation, including how six guest spaces and two covered spaces per unit will operate in practice given observed neighborhood overflow parking.

The applicant and team committed to follow up with staff and neighbors. The commission did not vote on the project (this was an advisory study session); commissioners asked staff and the applicant to return with revised plans and analyses addressing the items above prior to the project’s hearing before the Planning Commission. Staff indicated the item will be scheduled for Planning Commission consideration at a later date.

Neighbors and the applicant also discussed potential mitigation measures outside of the entitlement process; the applicant said it would use commercially reasonable efforts to work with adjacent homeowners on screening and landscape details but said it could not commit to paying for landscaping or improvements on private property if those costs would threaten the project’s economic viability.

The study session produced a set of design and technical directions for the applicant and staff to pursue, rather than a final action. The project will next be revised and returned to staff and the commission before being scheduled for decision by the Planning Commission.