Calibr Ventures had a productive Tuesday with the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, which decided in favor of two separate project appeals involving the housing developer.
The first was the proposed 10-home development at 1024 and 1026 Grayson Road in unincorporated Pleasant Hill, which the county planning commission denied, but was unanimously overridden by the supervisors.
The second was a 10-home subdivision at 3180 Walnut Blvd. in unincorporated Walnut Creek, which the county planning commission approved. The appeal was filed by William Goodwin, a neighbor of the proposed development. The board denied the appeal.
The Grayson Road project would cover 3.05 acres, an area through which Grayson Creek runs and already has two unoccupied residences. The lots would range from 7,347 to 22,460 square feet and single-family homes would range from 2,900 to 3,500 square feet, with four to five bedrooms.
One of the homes would be reserved for a “moderate income” family.
The developer would remove 97 trees at the site and mitigate their removal with 162 new trees. County staff recommended granting the developer’s appeal after acknowledging there were initial concerns about creek impact that were later addressed by the developer.
After reviewing the plan, staff also determined there wasn’t a need for an environmental impact report because there would be no significant impacts, as determined by biologists.
More than a dozen people — mostly neighbors — spoke against the project, citing the effects on the creek, traffic, what they said was a lack of drainage at the site, fire danger, having one entrance and exit, and that the houses wouldn’t be affordable for first-time home buyers.
The development would be in Supervisor Ken Carlson’s district. Carlson, who grew up in Pleasant Hill and was the city’s mayor, said the need for housing outweighs neighbor concerns, which he acknowledged.
Carlson said years of state lawmakers ignoring future housing needs helped bring on the current housing crisis and this project meets the state’s requirements.
“For many, they know my deep roots to Pleasant Hill, born and bred, grew up there, played in those creeks, hiked those hills, so I’m very protective of Pleasant Hill,” Carlson said. “The consequences of decades of inaction have led to what’s come out of Sacramento, whether that’s the Housing Accountability Act, whether that’s the density bonus law we’re facing.”
“We’ve got to create and build housing (and) have to be able to work with our developers to accomplish these goals,” Carlson said. “But we have to balance it with the protection of our community. Under the Housing Accountability Act, there has to be that preponderance of observable, objective, quantifiable evidence to give us the grounds to deny a project.”
Carlson told the developer, “We are protective of our environment. And we will hold you to the conditions of approval.”
The Walnut Boulevard project is another 10-home project from Calibr that was approved in January by the county planning commission, a decision that was affirmed unanimously by the board Tuesday.
Located at 3180 Walnut Blvd. in the unincorporated Walnut Creek area, the project would cover 2.88 acres. The developer would remove 43 trees from the site.
The appellant was Goodwin, a neighbor who said the property doesn’t drain into existing storm drains. He also said the two-story homes would be out of character for the neighborhood.
He also said the neighborhood already has flooding problems and an existing retention basin that eventually connects to the creek isn’t sufficient to hold runoff from the property.
County staff said the basin is big enough. Supervisors didn’t discuss the appeal extensively, with Carlson saying many of the same conditions for the Grayson project also applied to the Walnut Boulevard project before the board unanimously denied the appeal.
11 comments
Good!
The government has no business infringing on a private property owner’s right to develop homes on their own land.
The argument that “the neighborhood already has flooding problems and an existing retention basin that eventually connects to the creek isn’t sufficient to hold runoff from the property”’ is beyond spurious.
That reasoning presupposes that the site currently gets no rainfall but would somehow be inundated once houses are built. Hopefully the appellant is just a sour grapes NIMBY and not actually that daft.
They don’t care – they just want the revenue from the fees and taxes – any opposition to these kinds of projects is lost in their EIR reports… very sad
The developers had more money to pay someone off than the surrounding property owners.$$$$$$
Interested to see who will qualify for the moderate income home that gave the developer unlimited waivers for the projects. Can a moderate income resident afford the utilities on a 2,700 square foot home?
Welcome to the new Los Angeles – where every square inch of land is or will be developed, and where overpopulation overwhelms everything from schools, the roads, the courts…..
If you don’t want a man developing his own private property, BUY THE PROPERTY and donate it to a nature conversation trust.
That’s a far more noble approach than the socialist playbook that wields government power to curtail landowners’ property rights.
This is California. You are not allowed to say ‘man’ here.
The people who will be buying those homes can afford to buy homes anywhere. What a shame. So disappointed in Ken.
So, why not welcome them into Pleasant Hill?
There is a reason these left-over pockets of land haven’t been devolped for all these years. The spot in Walnut Blvd had a seasonal creek running right through it. It was basically a drainage ravine. Years back they buried a culvert and filled the whole thing in with soil of unknown origin and quality. I’d be curious to know what the earthworks plan is before they start building, because I’d be wary about building there.
How charitable of you to worry about millionaire home buyers’ soil quality and potential drainage woes!
Surely wealthy buyers can’t conduct due diligence or make informed financial decisions without local government interference with private property use decisions. (Sarcasm)
Comments are closed.