On Tuesday, the Walnut Creek City Council rejected appeals that now allows for the Mitchell Townhomes Project, a 422-home development, to move forward. This was done under a builders remedy. The council voted 4-1 with Mayor Kevin Wilk dissenting.
Two appeals of the Planning Commission’s decision were timely filed within the 10-day appeal period. The council heard them during the more than 5-hour council meeting.
- Appeal 1 was submitted on February 20, 2026, by Steve Elster on behalf of Friends of Walnut Creek and residents in the vicinity of the Project (FOWC Appeal). The FOWC Appeal raises concerns regarding the adequacy of the environmental analysis, including traffic impacts, evaluation of a senior living alternative, the applicability of the Builder’s Remedy, and the adequacy of public noticing.
- The second appeal was submitted on February 23, 2026, by Mike Heller et al., residents of the adjacent Viamonte Senior Living community (Viamonte Appeal). The Viamonte Appeal raises concerns regarding potential impacts to nearby residents, including construction-related air quality, tree removal, and traffic circulation, and requests additional mitigation measures and conditions of approval. Matters raised in the appeals are summarized below and responses to each point of appeal are provided in detail in the analysis section of this report.
The project was submitted in October 2023 as a SB 330 project – as a builders remedy under the Housing Accountability Act. Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Builder’s Remedy projects are processed without requiring General Plan amendments or rezoning. The Project includes 55 low-income units, qualifying it for a density bonus, incentives/concessions, and waivers from development standards under State Density Bonus Law. A formal application was submitted on April 9, 2024, and deemed complete on July 26, 2024.
According to the city, in the Concluding Statements Regarding Both Appeals of the staff report, the concerns raised in the two appeals related to the applicability of the Builder’s Remedy, adequacy of public noticing, traffic analysis, construction-related air quality, tree removal and landscaping, construction communication, traffic circulation, and emergency access were evaluated as part of the Environmental Impact Report and the City’s Project review process. The EIR determined that these issues would either result in less-than-significant impacts or would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of identified mitigation measures and standard conditions of approval.
About the project:
The Project proposes 422 townhomes and seeks approvals from the City of Walnut Creek (City) for a major subdivision (vesting tentative map), lot line adjustment, tree removal permit, design review, and development standards waivers under state Density Bonus Law. The Project will set aside 13 percent of the total 422 units, or 55 units, as affordable to low-income households. This exceeds the City’s inclusionary requirements of 7 percent low-income.
The Project contains voluntary off-site improvements as community benefits, which entail: (1) construction of a single-lane roundabout at the Shadelands Drive/Via Monte intersection, immediately south of the Project site. The Shadelands Multi-Modal Improvement Plan, previously adopted by the City Council, identifies this intersection for further evaluation and contemplates a roundabout; and (2) extension of Class IV bicycle facilities beyond the Project frontage along portions of Shadelands Drive and Mitchell Drive within the existing public right- of-way through striping, signage, and vertical separation posts. The Project is also making a voluntary monetary contribution of $60,000 towards video detection cameras at the Ygnacio Valley Road/Via Monte signalized intersection and at the Oak Grove/Contra Costa Canal Trail intersection, as well as $12,000 for median and striping improvements at Oak Grove/Contra Costa Canal Trail crossing. These improvements and monetary contributions are reflected in the Conditions of Approval in Walnut Creek Planning Commission (PC) Resolution No. 4004, which is included as a part of the draft Resolutions under Attachments 1 and 2.
The Project site’s current General Plan designation is Business Park and is in a Planned Development zone (PD 1543), neither of which permits residential development. The Project site currently contains 11 office buildings, which will all be demolished. The Project housing units are for-sale and are proposed to be 3-story buildings configured as 2-plex, 4-plex, 5-plex, and 6-plex building types with 1-4-bedroom units throughout the development
Council Discussion Tuesday Night
Councilmember Cindy Darling proclaimed the city was lucky they only got one builders remedy project but in her mind it was subject to the builders remedy.
“I think more importantly, I am the mother of two young professionals who are trying to live in the Bay Area, one is a civil engineer and ones a nurse and they make a lot of money and they cannot afford to live in walnut Creek,” said Darling. “It’s heart breaking… I want to be able to have my kids here in Walnut Creek.
She supported the project and recognized the concerns with the project and the construction impacts.
Councilmember Cindy Silva agreed and would support the project.
“This is a builder’s remedy project, and I trust our staff and attorneys and all I have been hearing all over the state is that this is a builders remedy. And we are lucky we only got one,” explained Silva noting the efforts to change state laws and processes and hopes to get better legislation in 2027.
She continued, “the thing is though, it’s a good project. We need housing. And we need housing that is of middle income and this style… it brings in 55 affordable units, it’s a for sale project, it is starter homes. We didn’t start in 4-bedroom homes, we started in studio apartments. This is good for us, and they have addressed the issues at a level that is above and beyond.”
Councilmember Craig DeVinney addressed it from the appeals standpoint noting they took the appeals and concerns very seriously.
“I do think based on our current law, this is a builders remedy project that we didn’t have a substantial housing element,” explained DeVinney. “In order to reject the project, we would have to show that it has an impact that we cannot mitigate. I don’t think the evidence has risen to that level.”
He called the traffic study comprehensive, but the evidence is there will be more traffic on Ygnacio Valley Road during peak hours.
“The law only allows us to deny a project based on very specific language and in this case, we could not show a specific impact,” said DeVinney.
Mayor Pro Tem Matt Francois also said he was convinced it was a builders remedy project and had no doubts about that, but saw the positives of the project. He supported the project.
“In terms of missing middle housing, its exactly was HDC was holding up certification of our housing element over because we didn’t provide for a diversity of housing types, primarily out on Ygnacio Valley,” explained Francois. “We had enough units downtown and around the BART station, but they wanted us to provide townhome type developments out on Ygnacio Valley which is what exactly this is.”
He also called Shadelands an area of transition and has had challenges over the years and if this executive park was fully leased, they would never have gotten this project submitted.
“The park is changing and evolving and generally I think that is a good thing,” stated Francois. “We have struggled with Shadelands for a while and we have vacancies, we have plenty of vacant office space in and around the BART station so we are not short for office space.
He also called the affordable housing component of the project as “huge” which doubles the amount of affordable housing that would normally be required under their ordinance—they couldn’t dismiss that.
“Our housing element, we have to solve for 5,800 units by 2031 and we need to pick up the pace on that,” said Francois noting through last year they issued 144 building permits and need to issue 5,800 by 2031—which could be subject to more builder’s remedies or other penalties.
Mayor Kevin Wilk appreciated everyone speaking and participating in the discussion. He shared he has heard about the project for the past 2-years.
“We do need housing, there is no question about that,” said Wilk but noted while HDC is requiring housing on Ygnacio Valley Road, they are not requiring jobs or public transportation.
He explained the area they know was designed for business and entertainment/lifestyle with some senior housing—calling the project a contradiction of city priorities and direction over several decades of efforts.
“It’s three miles from Pleasant Hill or Walnut Creek BART stations, not serviced by consistent public transit,” said Wilk. “There is going to be a need for more public transit and this is something we are all going to have to deal with… this will increase commute and drive times for everyone.”
He expressed other concerns that the project goes against their efforts to combat climate change, it eliminates the opportunity for more job creation, increases housing over job ratio, makes the city more of a “bedroom community”, it will increase traffic, conflicts with city priorities and sets a precedent.
“It doesn’t feel right. It may be legal, it doesn’t feel right. It doesn’t feel good,” said Wilk. “The way this has been done, it doesn’t feel good.”
Wilk admitted this was a builders remedy and was going to happen but did want more traffic studies given the impact. He called for a supplemental traffic study.
Francois appreciated the mayors comment noting he made good points but noted the market was dictating this—he didn’t see Shadelands staying a traditional business park from the 1970’s and 1980’s, but a future of mixed use.
Darling jumped in before the vote to talk sustainability noting if people do not live in Walnut Creek, they are going to live in Tracy, Mountain House, Lathrop and commute to San Francisco calling it a “bigger puzzle piece” noting people are willing to drive 2-3 hours to the Bay Area.
The council then voted 4-1 with Wilk dissenting to deny both appeals.
Documents:
- 5b Agenda Report
- Attachment 1 City Council Draft Resolution for Appeal 1
- Attachment 2 City Council Draft Resolution for Appeal 2
- Attachment 3 Planning Commission Resolutions
- Attachment 4 Planning Commission Staff Report
- Attachment 5 Appeal 1
- Attachment 6 Appeal 2
- Attachment 7 – First Carbon Solutions (FCS) Response to Appeals
- Attachment 8 Applicants Response to Appeals
- Attachment 9 Draft EIR (Exhibit A) to Attachments 1 and 2)
- Appendix A to Attachment 9
- Appendix B to Attachment 9
- Appendix C to Attachment 9
- Appendix D to Attachment 9
- Appendix E to Attachment 9
- Appendix F to Attachment 9
- Appendix G to Attachment 9
- Appendix H to Attachment 9
- Appendix I to Attachment 9
- Appendix J to Attachment 9
- Appendix K to Attachment 9
- Attachment 10 Final EIR (Exhibit B to Attachments 1 and 2)
- Attachment 11 Findings of Fact (Exhibit C to Attachments 1 and 2)
- Appendix 1 to Attachment 10
- Appendix 2 to Attachment 10
- Attachment 12 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (Exhibit D to Attachments 1 and 2)
- Attachment 13 Part 1 Project Plans
- Attachment 13 Part 2 Project Plans
- Attachment 13 Part 3 Landscape Plans
- Attachment 13 Part 4 Tentative map plans
- Attachment 13 Part 5 Offsite community benefit
- Attachment 14 Aerial View and Vicinity Map
- Attachment 15 Arborist Report
- Attachment 16 Objective Design Standards Checklist
- Attachment 17 Applicants Requested Waivers
- Attachment 18 Senior Living Alternatives
- Attachment 19 Public Comments Prior to Packet Publication
Previous:
