A proposal to build a 19-home subdivision in the North Gate area of unincorporated Walnut Creek will be the subject of a public hearing before the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator on Monday, Aug. 17, at 1:30 p.m. The hearing will be held at 30 Muir Road in Martinez, where the county will consider a Vesting Tentative Map and related requests for the proposed development at 1125 North Gate Road.
According to the public notice, the application was submitted by Andy Byde on behalf of property owner COJAM, LLC. The proposal would subdivide a 9.83-acre property into 19 residential lots ranging in size from approximately 3,597 to 63,760 square feet. The project also includes a 41,748-square-foot private access easement and a 1,622-square-foot right-of-way dedication. A four- to five-bedroom single-family home ranging in size from approximately 1,215 to 4,595 square feet is proposed for each lot. Three of the homes – Lots 17 through 19 – would be restricted for sale to very low-income households. Because the project includes affordable housing, the applicant is requesting several waivers, incentives and concessions under California’s Density Bonus Law.
Among the requested waivers are reduced lot sizes, modified front, rear and side yard setbacks, reduced lot widths and depths, parking modifications, reduced retaining wall setbacks, and relief from portions of the North Gate Specific Plan. The applicant is also seeking permission to calculate residential density using gross acreage, allow the affordable homes to be more than 10 percent smaller than the market-rate homes, construct the affordable homes on smaller lots, and use alternative interior finishes to reduce construction costs. The proposal also includes demolition of all existing structures, removal of 34 code-protected trees, work within the dripline of 13 additional code-protected trees, and approximately 34,700 cubic yards of cut and 34,700 cubic yards of fill. The property is zoned R-40 Single-Family Residential and is located in unincorporated Walnut Creek. Members of the public may attend the hearing in person, watch it online through Contra Costa County’s streaming service, or participate remotely by Zoom or telephone. Written comments may also be submitted by email or voicemail before or during the hearing.
I see having two “very low income” units in that area will affect the overall value of the whole neighborhood.
Don’t worry, the economy will crass, home values crash and everyone will have very low income. Welcome to third world California. 😎
Rattlesnake country.
This was already approved for development more than 10 years ago, but they just never built it.
So, this development is nothing new.
“Because the project includes affordable housing, the applicant is requesting several waivers, incentives and concessions under California’s Density Bonus Law.” This law was written by the development lobbyists. They did one with 10 homes, 1 being a ‘moderate income’, you know so they can say they are creating affordable homes. It will still be about $950K and by looking at the rules to apply I doubt anyone will qualify for it. Then after some time passes, they can sell it at market rate. Density Bonus snow job on Sacramento. Developers win!
3,597 square feet is in no way large enough for a lot.
… you’re right – so some will be high density housing … what a terrible place to build high density housing
Three “very low income” homes? Seriously? In the foothills of Mt. Diablo? So instead of $3 million homes, these three will be $1 million homes? Or are we talking $125,000 homes? Great way to bring down the neighborhood!
They can drive from their affordable home with an affordable car to a low paying job miles away.
So much for preserving open space …. but if it’s gone this far in planning it’s a done deal and all rhetoric in public discussions is just to say they punched the ticket to get citizen input…. and this is already poaching severely constrained water, power, etc. and growing traffic problems in the area ….. how much did the developers use for pay off this time?
domo,
.
These are the answers to issues that you brought up that the Concord City Council has given to the public. I’m sure the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will use the same answers.
.
This isn’t “open space,” it’s an empty lot.
.
The Contra Costa Water District has told us that they have more than enough water to provide water to these new homes and residents.
.
Electricity won’t be a problem because all of these homes will be required to have solar installed by the developer.
.
Traffic won’t be a problem because these new residents won’t be owning or traveling by car, they’ll only be traveling by walking, biking, busing, and BARTing. Councilwoman Laura Hoffmeister always likes to toss in that flying cars already exist and they’ll reduce roadway traffic. Former Councilman Edi Birsan used to say that self-driving cars communicating with smart-traffic lights were the answer to any future traffic problems and self-driving cars parking inches from other self-driving cars thereby eliminating the need to provide space for passengers to enter and exit parked cars would solve future parking issues. When the cheating, corrupt, lying preacher and State Senator Tim Grayson was on the council, he and his “Yes In My BackYard (YIMBY) donors, developers, and benefactors would say that rental Zip Cars were the answer to traffic and parking problems caused by future development. Long gone councilmembers were more honest and told the public “We know traffic is going to be a problem and your just going to have to deal with it.”
.
You’re correct, this is a done deal, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has already decided to approve this project, they’re only going through the motions of listening to public comment because they’re required to do so, if they’re actually listening that is, and not playing on their phones as they usually are.
…and do I believe CCWD? as much as I believe PG&E …. if there is nothing on the lot, it’s open – for viewing, flora, fauna, etc. rather than looking at another house. I’m not using the legal definition of “open space”
I’d be more concerned about the narrow road. I’ve been on it stuck an hour just to go a few hundred yards, adding another 19 units probably equates to 38+ cars twice a day. Eeek