Chevron gas station, McDonald's likely to stay in the big plan to develop crucial part of downtown Walnut Creek

I know. An effort to keep Chevron and the McDonald's fast-food restaurant are probably not the big news when it comes to the massive undertaking to develop 5.3 acres of key downtown real estate around Mt. Diablo Boulevard and Locust Street. After all, there is the likelihood that this plan will encourage the development of high-end shops and upper-floor residential and boutique hotel units. Another top priority for revitalizing this part of downtown is a new parking garage, as well as courtyards and attractive walkways, including the transformation of Commercial Lane into something other than a Dumpster-lined back alley.

I mention Chevron and McDonald's because these are two businesses that have expressed a strong interest in being part of the plan, according to a Community Development Department staff report prepared for a special City Council study session Thursday. The report mentions no other retailers, and adds that the plan remains flexible as to what exactly we'll see going into this area. That is, whether we'll see new condos go into a building at the corner of Mt. Diablo Boulevard and Locust Street, or whether Walnut Creek will be graced with the presence of a boutique hotel, or designer shops selling Gucci and Prada.

Thursday's study session takes place at 5 p.m. After today's session, the city council will hold a final hearing, or hearings, before adopting the plan and certifying a final environmental impact report on May 18. 

The city has been studying this part of downtown for more than six years, and the complete redevelopment of this area is a good five to 10 years off.

The parcels being looked at include: the now vacant Mark Morris Tire building and parking lot; the Locust Street post office; and a city-owned, 15-space parking lot at the corner of North Main Street and Mt. Diablo Boulevard. Across Locust Street and on over to North California Boulevard, the parcels under review include those occupied by: the former Home Chef; the converted Victorian; Z Gallerie; Big 5 sporting goods store; the Chevron gas station; and McDonald's. "Several of these sites, such as the Z Gallerie building, have redeveloped and have become attractive additions to the downtown area,' the report says.

Well, if the gas station stays, Chevron says it will do some improvements to make it more attractive. City staff says the gas station provides a "valuable service" to residents and visitors. The existing McDonald's building would have to go. No free-standing building or drive-thru allowed.  But the restaurant could relocate to another building planned for that site.

A lot of us are probably looking forward to a more attractive building replacing the Mark Morris Tire building and parking lot. A nice looking building with interesting storefront businesses or restaurants would be just the thing--don't you think?--to eliminate that supposed "Mason-Dixon" line of Mt. Diablo Boulevard that divides Walnut Creek's south and  north.  (Thanks again to "destination guru" Roger Brooks, hired by the Downtown Business Association, for that "Mason-Dixon" terminology!)

I'm also intrigued by the idea of a boutique hotel going into downtown Walnut Creek. I'm not sure who would stay there. Maybe it would be people from out of the area, who I have hear, currently book rooms at the Lafayette Park Hotel, just so they can venture over to Walnut Creek to shop.  Of course, I'm sure there are a lot of Walnut Creek residents who wouldn't mind sending their annoying in-laws to stay at a stylish downtown hotel.

If there is to be a boutique hotel, we could all enjoy a rooftop bar, especially if it had a view of Mount Diablo.

Meanwhile, whatever happens with this plan, I hope the developers don't think Walnut Creek needs more med spas.

Oops! There goes any potential med spa advertising dollars.

Small town? Big town? What's your view of Walnut Creek?

One of the key tensions among Walnut Creek residents is whether this community of 63,000 people should hold onto its quiet, small town roots--or it should become more urban, and less suburban. This tension shows up all the time in comments on this blog. Most recently I’ve seen this tension in reaction to posts I’ve done on the new library and about the City Council’s approval of a nine-unit housing project on the fringe of the historic Almond-Shuey neighborhood.

Contributing to this tension, it seems, is frustration--on one side and justified or not--with city leaders for not doing a good enough job listening to residents. On the other side are residents and business leaders who tend to be pro-development, whether the development involves a new high-end department store, a new library, new high-density "infill" housing projects in certain neighborhoods, or a new BART transit village. 

The following comments, to some degree, express different aspects of the tension. I thought I'd share a few and ask: Where do you fall on this small town/big town debate?

Here are views expressed by readers:

Regarding a post that referred to the new library (due to open this summer), a reader said:

Why is it so close to the street like every other newish building in Walnut Creek. Do we not value any set-backs anymore? ... I've noticed the same thing. I think the WC city council wants to make WC look like a true city (like NY city or SF) where the buildings are right on the sidewalk. I don't like it at all.

Regarding the City Council's decision on the Almond Lofts project, on a half-acre lot fronting Oakland Boulevard, many readers, who participated in this debate, offered different viewpoints on the small town/big town question:

It's only a matter of time before Walnut Creek is nothing but a shopping district surrounded by apartments. I get the distinct feeling that the City Council would love that.

But Steve Reiser, a realtor (and former president of the Contra Costa Board of Realtors), and Almond/Shuey resident and publisher of the Almond/Shuey Blog wrote:

Guess what? If you buy, rent or live in a downtown neighborhood, you have to deal with the consequences of downtown living. Disclosure laws are such that if you buy here today, you would need to sign a document acknowledging items such as BART, freeway, traffic and potential development. It cracks me up when someone moves to or lives in downtown Walnut Creek, then complains about traffic and noise. It goes with the territory.

[Reiser says he put together a petition drive, prior to the Almond Lofts decision, asking Almond/Shuey neighbors to voice their approval of the project.]

He explains that he put it together because “I personally believe that this is a smart project and ideal for that lot. … Oakland Blvd has unfortunately taken on somewhat of a hodge-podge element of urban blight; empty offices, run-down homes and apartment buildings, a new pot club, weekly abortion picketers, and of course the big (eyesore) empty lot in question which is often used to park trucks and trailers.”

Finally, another reader, commenting on the Almond Lofts project, took a bigger-picture view of the basic pro- or anti-development, small town/big town question:  

Of course we can't go back to the good old days, and quite honestly there is alot about the good old days that we would not find amusing or convenient.

But.......we must be better stewards of what is left of the older parts of town that add so much to our community.

The "tear it down and fill it up with multiples" attitude has got to come to an end, now!


For the council members who don't live in or any where near the older parts of town, seem to feel that their neighborhoods are the only ones worth preserving. Wrong.


Wake up people! It is only going to get worse and pretty soon we will have a totally "plastic" downtown created because our council is "infill" mad. No matter, it doesn't affect their way of life in the end.

Guest Commentary asks whether Walnut Creek staff, leaders really listen to neighborhood concerns regarding projects

This guest commentary comes from Tom O’Brien, a resident of the Almond/Shuey neighborhood, right next to downtown.

His commentary comes in advance of Tuesday night’s City Council meeting at which members will be asked to approve the construction of nine new homes, on a half-acre lot, at the Oakland Boulevard edge of this charming, historic neighborhood.

The homes, to be built on the oddly shaped lot at the corner of Oakland Boulevard and Almond Avenue, will be detached, and on their own lots, including one that will consist of a duplex. Most of the homes are two-bedroom, ranging from two to three stories, and between 1,400 and 1,900 square feet.

The project has been debated and discussed since 2004. The Planning Commission approved it, but not unanimously. Four commissioners praised the the developer for making several concessions and revisions to reduce its density (from 12 units to nine). Two commissioners said “no,” based on continuing concerns about insufficient onsite parking, access to the homes, and traffic issues.

With regard to concerns about density and parking, O’Brien, on his website about the project, says these “tightly-packed” homes are of a higher density than zoning permits in that neighborhood. He adds that each of these homes would feature a double-master bedroom design. “The developer has stated that one target market he has identified for the homes is young professionals who need to take in a roommate to afford their first home. Since it is reasonable to assume that a number of these homes will be occupied by unrelated adults, each of whom is likely to own a car - the neighbors believe that at least two parking spaces should be provided per unit. Throughout the hearings, staff has indicated that only 1.5 spaces per unit are called for, per the BART Proximate Parking Ordinance. "

You can read more about the pros and cons of this project at O’Brien’s website and in the staff report prepared by the city’s Community Development department in advance of the City Council meeting. The Contra Costa Times also covered the issue back in early October.

Meanwhile, O’Brien believes this issue raises larger questions about city responsiveness to neighborhood concerns about projects and whether the city shows favoritism to developers—over those of residents. Read his commentary, and see what you think, whether you agree with O’Brien or not.

Thanks Tom for raising this question. I know it’s something that’s on the minds of residents, in the wake of the Neiman Marcus controversy. It has also come up as a topic in the series of Community Conversations the city has been holding to prioritize its goals for the future.

Anti-neighborhood bias in Walnut Creek
The questionnaire given to all applicants for the Walnut Creek Planning Commission points out that “frequently, at a public hearing, you will hear testimony only from those opposed to the project," and asks how the applicant would respond. (I sometimes suspect that the preferred answer is that you will listen politely, but not let the ravings of those whining malcontents influence your decision to approve the project.) If the City of Walnut Creek included the neighborhoods in the planning process, public hearings might not be so confrontational. But the City has chosen a different path.

When a developer comes to the City with a new project, the developer and the City Planning staff sit down in private and craft a proposal amenable to both. Staff then works to push the project through the public hearing process. All the neighborhoods can do is to try (often futilely) to voice our concerns over staff-level decisions we never had a say in. The Parkmead neighborhood was put in this position with the Mark Scott homes. Homestead had their battle over the Homestead Hilton. Now it’s the Almond/Shuey’s turn with the “Almond Bungalows."

Without consulting the neighborhood, the City staff decided that the zoning on the lot at the corner of Almond Avenue and Oakland Boulevard could be raised, the parking didn’t need to meet current standards, and the driveway for what is essentially an Oakland Boulevard infill project could be sited on our quiet neighborhood street. From the very first public hearing, these decisions have been presented as settled, and the neighbors’ attempts to have the impacts on our neighborhood mitigated have been rebuffed. Staff has even reinterpreted City codes and ordinances in support of their position. The Design Review and Planning Commissioners have followed along with the Staff’s recommendations – after all, Staff has more credibility than those whining neighborhood malcontents – don’t they? The project has been forwarded to the City Council for final approval.

You can see what we’ve been up against to date at http://www.inertboom.org/bias. Our neighborhood’s final stand will be this Tuesday, November 17th at the City Council meeting. If you agree that neighborhood issues aren’t given a fair hearing in Walnut Creek, please come support us.

Thank you,
Tom O’Brien
Almond/Shuey neighborhood resident.

Readers' visions of Walnut Creek and its future

A few weeks back I asked readers to answer the question: What is Walnut Creek to you? What kind of community should it be? What kind of future should it have? What should residents and city leaders be doing to ensure that we have that future?

I was asking these questions in the wake of controversy over the Neiman Marcus proposal and continued concerns about the library project. I said I might select some of the comments to post as free-standing articles.

I received a great selection of comments: thoughtful, informed, impassioned. The comments were from people who clearly care about the community and represented different viewpoints. Here are three that I thought were complementary, and I will run others in the future,. I hope to allow a forum where residents can continue to debate and discuss issues related to the city's larger "vision thing." Thanks everyone who shared their comments.

From July 8, 2009 10:24 p.m.:

My vision for downtown has always been to maintain its character and charm with development that respects our uniqueness. We are beautifully located beneath Mt Diablo and its foothills. We have trees and alleys and some wonderful spots to sit and enjoy.

In my opinion, the Neiman Marcus project offers nothing to the character and charm of the downtown. They're tearing down perfectly good buildings and putting up a monument to greed. There is not a plaza, courtyard, fountain or even a roof garden in their plans. Instead we are offered walls that will come up to the sidewalk but bring in lots of $$$. People may stop coming when we start looking like every other mall and increased congestion makes us less convenient.

The Bart Transit Village will have 50 foot tall buildings in the existing parking lot east of the tracks. When visitors and commuters arrive at the station, instead of views of the mountain and foothills, they'll be welcomed by concrete walls. It would seem that with all this so called progress, we are giving up a lot of what makes us special. And yes, Soccer Mom, it feels like we're losing our soul to the almighty $$$$.

From July 8, 2009 12:18 p.m.

It would be nice if the city staff and politicians stuck to the General Plan so many contributed to. Some of us spent a lot of time participating and expect our contributions to the process to actually mean something.

Given that downtown is a dense (and growing denser) urban core, it is extremely important to me that the neighborhoods in Walnut Creek become more clearly defined and the character of those neighborhoods be preserved. San Francisco is a good model in way (though hopefully WC will never become that dense!). Each neighborhood in SF is like a town within the city of SF with character, local community, local participation, etc. Why not develop and define similar neighborhood communities in WC? And ... last but not least ... if city staff and council had respected neighborhood concerns about development in the recent past --- e.g., the Homestead Hilton project, the size of the library project, etc. --- there probably wouldn't as much brouhaha about Nieman Marcus...NM is just the final straw, imo.

I personally like the idea of NM downtown, btw.

From July 14, 2009 1 p.m.:

Have lived in WC about ten years now after living for several decades first in the country and then in a densely packed urban environment. Walnut Creek is my first suburban experience ...

However, it's not truly suburban anymore.

From what I can see in WC, the downtown is no longer a suburban downtown, yet many commenting here refer to downtown as if it is still suburban and seem to want to reclaim that feeling. It's way too late for that. The tide turned in Walnut Creek when the Brad Blake projects were built downtown. This is not going to get unbuilt, though there might be a lot of vacant store fronts in this economy for awhile.

I agree with the previous poster who mentioned WC neighborhoods ... Why not let the downtown continue to become more and more urban with high density housing, etc. and contain the density there and around the BART? Then focus attention on defining and preserving the neighborhoods throughout Walnut Creek (maybe those neighborhoods could each develop their own official mini-master plan even) ... That's what successful urban environments do. Examples: Portland, San Francisco, Chicago, etc. Let's accept the inevitable and focus our attention on impacting strongly identified neighborhoods.

Walnut Creek’s BART transit village: a development project I look forward to hearing more about

Over the next six months, the city will hold a series of public meetings to look at plans to build nearly 600 new homes, in the form of apartment units and live-work spaces, and a commuter parking garage, as well as retail and office space around the BART station.

I think it sounds like an interesting project, one that the city has spent a lot of time on. Four years. Most intriguing to me is that it fits into the Smart Growth idea espoused by both economists and environmentalists.

Sure, a project like this presents more evidence that Walnut Creek isn’t Mayberry anymore. It’s urban, dense, and big. It will add about 470,000 square feet of new housing, retail and office construction. But, according to the city staff report, these new buildings fit within the parameters of the General Plan, and building heights would adhere to the 50-foot maximum established for the site by Measure A, the 1985 height limit initiative.

Will the project bring more traffic and congestion into town? Possibly. However, the project is located in a place that will encourage its residents to use public transit to get to work and to walk the short distance into downtown to shop, eat out, and go out for movies and other entertainment.

Over the past few years, I’ve read various reports by business leaders and East Bay economic experts who all say our regional economy can’t sustain itself in the long term if individual communities don’t provide sufficient housing for the people who want to work in them. Having masses of people spending hours in traffic, commuting long distances from where they can afford to live, just isn't cost-effective or healthy--for individuals, individuals, the environment, and society as a whole.

Transit villages built around BART stations are part of the Smart Growth wave of suburbia's present and future.

Nearly 600 apartment units won't fulfill the life-style demands of all the people who want to live in or near Walnut Creek, but it’s a start. Yes, this project, with its apartment housing, won't address the need of young families who want a spacious single family home and a yard, but Walnut Creek is pretty much built out and doesn’t any room to build a large number of such homes anymore. And these young families—unless dad or mom or both have well-paying professional jobs, or trust funds—can’t afford to buy in Walnut Creek anyway. And that's true, even with the housing market crash.

According to the staff report, prepared for Wednesday night’s Design Review Commission, the project will also feature public open space, public art, and publicly accessible views of Mount Diablo.

This project still has a ways to go, including studies on environmental impact and traffic flow around the 16.8-acre site, before it’s finally approved.

Also, we’ll need to see how it’s going to look. The project aims be “physically and visually integrated into the city” and to “create an attractive, livable neighborhood.”

Let’s hope that’s the case.

For more information about the project, and the proposed public meeting schedule, here's the link to the agenda.