HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01011979 - R 12 IN 13 Geernaert, Jerry
Rezoning Application 2243-RZ
Walnut Creek Area
1979
STORED: OA A- Ply it)1 (1)(6- REEL #._1 a INDEX #_,__,MAP #
BOX # 000?25 --G..
Diablo Engineers
Rezoning Application 2243-RZ
Walnut Creek Area
1979
STORED: �,O - Q[AAI 0 10 t-IREEL #_1,2____TNDEX # MAP #
BOX # o o OV
^15
look,\�
1
James R.Olsson
The Board of Supervi�s Contra County Clark and
Ex 011icio Clerk o!-tne Board
County Administration Building Costa c e Geraldine Russell
P.O. Box 911 County (415)372-2371
Martinez, California•94553 `�
Tom Powers,1st District
Nancy C.Fanden,2nd District Z_
Robert i.Schroder,3rd District
Sunne Wright McPeak,4th District Lt
Eric H.Hasselline,5th District
May 7, 1979
CONTRA COSTA TILMES
2640 Shadelands Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Gentlemen
Re: Purchase Order J� 43128
Enclosed is Ordinance No. 79-55 (2243-RZ) rezoning land
in the Walnut Creel: area
INch we wish you to publish on May 14, 1979.
Please sign the enclosed card and return it to this
office.
ItitMEDIA.L?Y upon the expiration of publication, send
us an affidavit of publication in order that the Auditor
may be authorized to pay your bill.
Very truly yours,
To be charged at the J. R. OLSSO CLERK
maximum rate the County
may pay for legal
advertising. By ;
Gl is I.I. Palomo, Deputy Clerk
f =�
w
ORDINANCE NO. 79-55
(Re-Zoning Land in nic
wnln„t Cxeck Area)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Page N-16 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map (Ord. No. 78-
93) is amended by re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s)
attached hereto and incorporated herein (see also County Planning Department File
No. 7243-R7 )
FROM: Land Use District A-7 ( (y�npral Agyiriiltnrp nictriot )
TO: Land Use District R-65 ( Single Family Residential )
and the Planning Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to
Ordinance Code Sec. 84-2.003.
----------
A-2
i
/
/
i
SECTION If. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after
passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of
supervisors voting for and against it in theaContra Costa Tim a ,
newspaper published in this County.
PASSED on May 1. 1979 by the following vote:
Supervisor Ayc No Absent Abstain
1. 1'. M. Powers W ( ) ( ) ( )
2. N. C. Fanden (x) ( ) ( ) ( )
j 3. It.1.Schroder (x) ( ) ( ) ( )
i 4. S. IV. Mepeak (x) ( ) ( ) ( )
5. E. H.Hasseltine (x) ( ) ( )
I ATTEST: J.It.Olsson, County Clerk
and miff,ciocglerk of t e Board
Chairman of the Board
By 1 ep. Clerk (SEAL)
Gloria I4. Palomo
ORDINANCE NO. 79-55
2243-RZ Diablo Engineers, Inc.
IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of ) April 17, 1979
Hearing on the Request of )
Diablo Engineers, Inc. (2243-RZ) )
to Rezone Land in the Walnut Creek )
Area. )
Dr. Jerry Geernaert, Owner. )
The Board on March 20, 1979 having fixed this time for
hearing on the County Planning Commission recommendation for
approval with conditions of the application of Diablo Engineers,
Inc. (2243-RZ) to rezone approximately 4.04 acres fronting 392
feet on the east side of Pine Creek Road, 2900 feet southeast of
Castle Rock Road in the Walnut Creek area from General Agricultural
District (A-2) to Single Family Residential District (R-40); and
A. A. Dehaesus, Director of Planning, having advised that
a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance was filed for
this proposal; and
Harvey Bragdon, Assistant Director of Planning, having
stated that the Commission's recommendation of R-40 zoning was
contingent upon the applicant meeting the conditions of approval for
sewer connection and potable water prior to the actual rezoning; and
Arthur Shelton, attorney representing the applicant, having
stated that the proposed density is consistent with surrounding
development, that his client will comply with the recommended
conditions, and that a four-lot subdivision is needed to make the
sewer connection economically feasible; and
Michael Ambrose, Secretary-Treasurer of the Castle Rock
County Water District, having stated that the district's water supply
could not accommodate extensive residential development, and having
urged that the agricultural zoning classification be retained for the
area; and
Barbara Bigelow, 250 Pine Creek Road, Walnut Creek, and
Robert E. Schar, 575 Pine Creek Road, Walnut Creek, having stated
that approval of the request could set a precedent for future rezonings
and that R-65 would be a more appropriate zoning; and
Arthur Shelton, in rebuttal, having stated that several
options were available for the provision of water and that if necessary
a condition could be attached to preclude annexation to the Castle Rock
County Water District; and
Supervisor R. I. Schroder having stated that he had viewed
the property site, that in his opinion there was no justification to
allow variances for two lots necessary under an R-40 zoning, and that
based on presented testimony he would recommend that the land be
rezoned to R-65, noting that sewer and water provisions are an integral
part of said zoning; and
The Board having considered the matter, IT IS ORDERED that
the recommendation of Supervisor Schroder is APPROVED.
(30 X22.5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ordinance No. 79-55 giving
effect to the aforesaid rezoning is INTRODUCED, reading waived and
May 1, 1979 is set for adoption of same.
PASSED by the Board on April 17, 1979.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct
copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors
on the date aforesaid.
cc: Diablo Engineers, Inc. Witness my hand and the Seal of
Dr. Jerry Geernaert the Board of Supervisors affixed
Director of Planning this 17th day of April, 1979.
County Assessor
Arthur M. Shelton J. R. OLSSON, Clerk
s d �'4��P�
LOG- By .Deputy Clerk
Dor thy C Ga s
Ref: file #2243-RZ
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 4/8/79
Martinez, California 94553
Dear Supervisor:
On April 17th, you will be voting on a request by Dr. Jerry Geernaert
and Diablo Engineers, File #2243-RZ, to approve R-40 zoning for a parcel
of land in our neighborhood. If you approve this, two adjacent parcels will-
request the same zoning in order to "fully develop" their land for maximum
profit. As a result of your approval, all of the neighbors in this area
will suffer because of:
1: Increased vehicle traffic on Pine Creek Rd., a one lane road.
2: Expensive sewer assessments.
3: Lower water pressure, and possible loss of all water in summer.
4: Objection to our farm animals.
5: Loss of open space.
You have the power to destroy one of the few remaining rural areas
left. Please let us continue to live in the atmosphere we chose years
ago. We are not "city folk".
Thank you, RECEIVED
Mrs. Lynda M. Ambrose
CIERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
61 1. P i ne Creek Rd C NIRA COSTA Co.
...._.......Deputy
Walnut Creek
G'G: r�cGsa/ AGENDA ITEM
for
(date)
• i
April 7, 1979 William M. Ambrose
611 Pine Creek Rd.
Walnut Creek, Ca. 94598
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street
Martinez, California, 94553
Re: File #2243-RZ
Dear Supervisor:
On April 17, you will be asked to consider the above rezoning request
by Dr. Jerry Geernaert, owner. I urgently request you reject Dr. Geernaert's
R-40 zoning for the following reasons:
1: The area is quite rural, with three commercial stables immediately
adjacent to the subject property. Dr. Geernaert intends to build a "country
club" on the area. Horses, steer, roosters and their attendant well known
"charms" are what make the area what it is to the present residents. 1
doubt that the "country club set" Dr. Geernaert intends to sell to will
appreciate the aroma of the livestock o�- the 5:00 AM wake up call of the
roosters. It takes no genius to figure out who will lose out - us.
2: The county general plan classifies the area as "Country estate". Dr.
Geernaert has publicly stated his intention to build a country club. I
suggest he go to Danville to do so. His proposed density and development
simply do not belong in the truly unique setting on Pine Creek.
3: A condition imposed by the Planning Commission upon their approval of
R-40 zoning was sewer service "at applicants expense". Any fool ( and every
resident of our area) knows that WE will pay for the sewer that we don't
need. We will pay either now, through gentle "pressure" by the Health Dept. ,
or when we sell , as a new lender will require sewers be connected. R-40
zoning will cost each of the present residents at least $10,000 by Health
Dept. estimates, for Dr. Geernaert's benefit. Of course, he will receive
his expenditure back in the form of connection fees.
4: As described in the letter from the Castle Rock Water District, R-40
zoning will drastically overburden the water district, eventually costing
each of us a great deal of money.
5: The Planning Commission recommended a compromise of R-65 zoning for the
are in July 1978. Dr. Geernaert was not satisfied with that, for the obvious
reason that he would only make a few hundred percent profit on his investment,
After six months of delays and maneuvering, he succeeded in getting the
current R-40 recommendation. I suggest that A-2 with variance is appropriate
for the area, and still allows Dr. Geernaert a very substantial profit.
I have enclosed a copy of my letter of 7/8/78 to the Planning Commission
which further describes the situation in the area. R� E I V D
ThPiam
ou,
AGENDA ITEM /-',3 o��, �L
for
(date) .- '
M. Ambrose 000 2` a CLERK BOARD OFSSUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
B.� .... ----_------.Deputy
-. • • F< <,n_
Planning Commission July 8, 1978
Contra Costa County
Martinez, Ca 94553
Re: Rezoning application of Dr. Jerry Geernaert - Pine Creek Rd.
Dear Commissioner:
With apologies for my less than adequate presentation at the meeting
of July 5, I would like to point out several facts, factors and opinions
on Dr. Geernaert's proposal to rezone his property to R-40.
As you can see on you field trip, the immediate area is "country
estate" type rural in nature. The immediately adjacent homessit on
5.18, 1.05, 2.15, 1.5, 1.3 and 5.9 acres. They are so sited that all
retain the rural atmosphere. If R-40 zoning is approved for this parcel ,
it will in effect create a "mini tract", destroying the rural charm
which should be maintained in the area. Your planning staff has recom-
mended R-65 zoning. This would have the effect of limiting the develop-
ment to two parcels, a completely satisfactory development which allows
Dr. Geernaert a reasonable profit on his investment and retains the
rural area as it should be.
Immediately to the north of the subject parcel is a 5.18 ranch which
has been sold, contingent upon R-40 zoning for Dr. Geernaert. This of
course means that if you approve R-40 here, you will shortly be requested
to approve R-40 for that parcel ; with a couple of "reasonable" variances,
the developer will then put six homes on that parcel. Then, immediately
north of that parcel, there are 14.82 acres now owned by a developer. I
realize we aren't going to create a "future slum" by R-40 zoning. I do
feel strongly that R-40 is inappropriate in this immediate area. Three
homes will comfortably fit on the 5.18 acres; probably nine or ten on
the 14.82 acres. That is reasonable development for this area, which
allows the developer to a make a substantial profit and yet doesn't
destroy the "flavor".
Other factors you may not be aware of: Dr. Geernaert indicated there
is a"large parcel . just down the street" that is "slated to be zoned
R-20". In fact, the parcel he refers to is number(s) 138-142-005 &006.
These parcels total 46.7 acres. This property is not slated to be R-20 -
The Board of Supervisors is expected to pass a fin resolution next week
creating the Pine Creek Flood Control Catch Basin on the property.
You possibly are not aware of the water situation in this area. The
only water available is untreated water, supplied by the Castle Rock
County Water District. Dr. Geernaert's property lies within the district,
however Health Department regulations prohibit any further private water
treatment systems. This leaves Dr. Geernaert with two choices: He can
drill wells, however, Health Department regulations prohibit a well and
septic tank on less than one full acre. In addition, underground water
in,the area is spotty, at best, usually contains sulphur (whew: ), and
Boron, which kills plants. Our local expert, Joe Mangini, can advise
you on this subject. Dr. Geernaert's second alternative is the proposed
Northgate Water Assessment District. As 76% of the residents of the
proposed district oppose it, this would not seem to be a viable alternative.
A far better solution to the problem is to allow two parcels, with
wells and septic tanks on the (larger) parcels, supplemented by Castle
Rock Water District untreated water. This type of development could be
accommodated by the Castle Rock Water District without imposing a major
financial burden on the other customers in the district for larger the
larger facilities required for fire control and adequate supply.
Dr. Geernaert has proposed to bring in sewers as another alternative.
This still will not solve the well water or water supply problems.
Dr. Geernaert has indicated to you that he drilled 90 septic tank
test holes on the property. I walk the property daily, and have never
seen 90 holes dug, much less tested for percolation. He indicated he
has ".. .three good sites, with a fourth probable..." Again, I simply
doubt his word. Health Department records indicate that only one septic
site has been approved on the parcel , and that approval has expired.
In summary, the best use of the property is for two "country estates",
one on each side of the private road. I urge you, along with my neighbors,
to either approve the staff recommendation of R-65 zoning, or leave the
zoning A-2 and allow a variance, when requested, to allow subdivision
into tnbparcels only.
Xkyou, Am rose
611 Pine Creek Rd.
Walnut Creek
937-7614
000 1
J
Ostle Rock County Water Distrito
Contra Costa County Board of Superviso /fig
Pine St.
Ma RECEIVED
Martinez, Ca 94538
Re: Rezoning application #2243-RZ
19-+7J
1. o.pori
Dear Supervisor CLERK 6CAFD OF SUPFP,vIS0:5
CONI 4 COSTA CO.
Cy_.. .. Deputy
The Board of Directors of the Castle Rock ounty Water District urgently
request you deny the above referenced rezoning application, and 1-e. ave. the
area zoned agricultural A72. Our water district simply cannot accomodate such.
relatively dense development. It is our opinion and fear that approval of
R-40 zoning for Dr. Geernaert will lead to a severe water shortage in the
area, the only solution to which would be a total reconstruction of our
entire water system, at an estimated cost of over $500,000.
By way of background information, the Castle Rock Water District was
formed in 1955 with the sole intent of providing agricultural water to
the approximately 140 acres on Pine Creek and Castle Rock Roads which lie
beyond the service area of the Treated Water District, CCCWD. The facility
was constructed utilizing a property tax bond issue. It consists of a pump
station located on the Contra Costa Canal at Oak Grove Rd. , and an 8" main
line leading to a WWII surplus redwood storage tank of nominal 100,000
gailons storage capacity, with connecting lines to the 50 or so customers.
The water usage pattern over the years has evolved from over 90% agricultural
at inception to approximately 90% comestic use at this time. It is the only
water available to most of our customers. A recent ruling by the County
He6lth Department requires a .potable water system independent of our district
before a building permit may be issued for new construction.
The owner, Dr. Geernaert, has argued that his development will not increase
the demands upon the Castle Rock County Water District, as he will provide
wells for his water. We have learned the hard way that Dr. Geernaert's
opinion will not work out. The recent development of six (out of a possible
18) residential lots owned by Mr. Todd Lockwood within our district proved
this beyond any doubt. The District's daily water usage rate rose by 30%
over previous years with the completion of just those six homes. The problem,
simply, is that there are no "good" wells in the area - Mr. Lockwood drilled
several wells which produce plenty of water. Unfortunately, nothirg, inclu-
ding people, can use the water due to the presence of boron, sulphur and the
very high Ph factor. The regulations under which our water district was
formed prohibit us from denying service to any property within the district.
It has been our experience that newer, high priced homes as proposed by
Dr. Geernaert use Castle Rock Water even if well water is available. Our
system is billed on a flat rate system, with no meters.
" If Dr. Geernaert's request was "alone", so to speak, we could probably
accommodate the development. Unfortunately, the five acres immediately north
of Dr. Geernaert's parcel is now owned by another developer, Mr. Wing Gee.
We know of no direct connection between Mr. Gee and Dr. Geernaert, but it
is reasonable to assume that Mr. Gee will shortly request five or more lots
on his property if you approve Dr. Geernaert's request. This would of course
lead to additional, higher density requests on a least two other nearby
parcels. We feel it vital to all residents of the district that the density
of development in the area be kept well above the R-40 level.
AGENDA ITEM_ /: .3 0,a/rj. cfe-
for i7- 7 7
r Castle Rock County Water District re: 2243-RZ
Page 2
It is extremely important to the 100 plus resident property owners in
the Castle Rock County Water District that Dr. Geernaert's project be
stopped at a reasonable level of density (A - 2) . Our current projections,
based on the experience with the Lockwood development, are that Dr. Geernaert's
development, coupled with the projected similar development of Mr. Gee's
property, will double our current rate of water consumption. We project
that we will be unable to meet demand at least 20% of the time during
peak summer months, as daily use would exceed the capacity of our pumping
and storage facilities. Dr. Geernaert and Mr. Gee would not suffer, nor
will residents of Mr. Lockwood's development, as they have or will have
sufficient storage for their own needs. The only people to suffer will
be the long time residents in the rest of the district. An additional
consideration which is only now becoming apparent is the implementation
of new regulations regarding use of canal water by the CCCWD. It appears
that the net effect of these new regulations will be to eventually limit
and/or reduce the amounts of water that may be taken from the canal by
private districts such as ours. This will probably further restrict
our ability to service our present customers, to say nothing of future
development in the area.
We strongly urge you to reject Dr. Geernaert's R-4O request. We
•� recognize that development is inevitable, and therefore recommend that
you approve only variances from the A-2 zoning to I acres. A-2 we can
probably service, with cooperation from our customers, and it allows
the owner a very substantial return on his investment, a matter which I
am certain is of vital concern to Dr. Geernaert.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
Very Truly Yours,
1 iam M. Ambrose, Secretary-Treasurer
Joe Mangini, Jr. President
Alfred Cooper, board member
Alfred DeIGado, board member
LaV,erne Ward, board member
r
00;-? >,
RG ROBERT GRAHAM & ASSOCIATES
associates ROBERT R. GRAHAM, AIP , PLANNING CONSULTANT
April 8, 1979
Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
Administration Building
Martinez, California Re: Rezoning - Pine Creek Road Area
Walnut Creek
Gentlepersons:
I understand that there is an application before you for consideration for
rezoning of a 4 acre parcel on Pine Creek Road from A-2, General Agriculture,
to R-40, Single Family Residential land use. It also appears that a 6 acre
parcel to the north on Pine Creek Road will be requesting similar zoning.
As an owner of an acre of land on Pine Creek Road, it certainly is not my
place to oppose such zoning in the area. What concerns me however, is the
possbility that the neighborhood will be zoned in a piecemeal fashion over
the next several years without assurance of what that zoning will be for
the next decade or more. With the need to extend the sewer line from Castle
Rock Road to the site, there is also concern by neighborhood residents that
they will be forced to hook up to that line and pay very high hookup
and rebate fees in the process. Many in the neighborhood are not in an
economic position to consider that suburban level of utility service.
As the Planning Department and Planning Commission had once recommended
R-65. zoning on the subject parcel, the existing zoning requiring
5 acre lots, and the proposed zoning R-40, it would seem highly desirable
from a planning viewpoint to refer the zoning matter back to the Planning
Commission for consideration of appropriate zoning of the entire Pine Creek
Road neighborhood. Whether that study indicated that R-40, R-65 or some
other zone was appropriate, comprehensive policy at least would be
uniformly applied; and neighbors would know what they could expect over
the next ten years or more.
Thank you for consideration of this suggestion that affects not only one or
two parcels but an entire rural neighborhood.
Cordially, r //
Robert R. Graham,AICP RE CF-1
RRG:bg
cc: Pine Creek Road Homeowners
GLL K E743;) C
1620 NORTH M IN STREET WALNUT CREEK CALIFORNIA 94596 (41&�� ?�a4-24-2
In the Board of Supervisors
of
Contra Costa County, State of California
March .2-0 19 2-1
In the Matter of
Hearing on the Request of Diablo
Engineers, Inc. (2243-RZ) to
Rezone Land in the Walnut Creek
Area.
Dr. Jerry Geernaert, Owner.
The Board on January 23, 1979 having referred back to the
County Planning Commission for reconsideration the rezoning application
of Diablo Engineers, Inc. (2243-RZ) to rezone land in the Walnut Creek
area; and
The Board having received a March 7, 1979 memorandum from
A. A. Dehaesus, Director of Planning, transmitting Resolution No.
20-1979 adopted by the County Planning Commission recommending that
the Board approve with conditions the applicant's original request
to rezone land from General Agricultural District (A-2) to Single
Family Residential District (R-40);
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that a-hearing be held on
Tuesday, April 17, 1979 at 1z30 p.m. in the Board Chambers, Room 107,
Administration Building, Pine and Escobar Streets, Martinez, California.
PASSED by the Board on March 20, 1979.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the
minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid.
Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of
cc: Diablo Engineers, Inc. Supervisors
Dr. Geernaert 20th March 79
Mr. Shelton affixed thil-1-doy OT--l- 19-�
Mr. Ambrose
Mr. Schar LSSON, Clark
Mr. Irwin Deputy Clark
R. Kvalvik BY
Director of Planning nda Amdahl
H. Bragdon
H-24 4177 15.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
=RECEIVED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MAR 9 1979
J. R. OLSSON
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: March 7, 1979 B ONTRA TA CO.
J7e
Contra Costa County
FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesus !' SUBJECT: REPORT TO BOARD ON REFERRAL:
Director of Plannin j, Diablo Engineers/J. Geernaert (2243-RZ)
Walnut Creek area.
Attached is Planning Co7is} n Resolution No. 20-1979, adopted by the County Planning
Commission on Tuesday, N rch F, 1979, by a vote of 6 AYES - 1 ABSENT (Phillips) .
This Board referred application was reviewed by the County Planning Commission on
Tuesday, February 27, 1979, to consider the new evidence of the applicant---to
install public water and sewers.
The Planning Commission, after review and consideration of this new evidence, recommends
to the Board of Supervisors that the zoning change be from General Ag:icultural District
(A-2) to Single Family Residential District (R-40) , CONDITIONALLY; that the applicant
shall provide public water and public sewers for the development of this property prior
to the zoning change requested being made final.
The subject property is described as being approximately 4.04 acres fronting 392-ft.,
on the east side of Pine Creek Road, approximately 2,900-ft., southeast of Castle
Rock Road: Walnut Creek area.
The following people should be notified of your Board's hearing date and time:
Mr. Jerry Geernaert (Owner) Mr. Robert Schar
3234 Del Mar Drive 575 Pine Creek Road
Lafayette, California 94549 Walnut Creek, Calif. 94598
Diablo Engineers, Inc. Mr. Mrs. Rolf Kvalvik
3230 Clayton Road P. 0. Box 3015
Concord, California 94521 Walnut Creek, Calif. 94598
Mr. W. M. Ambrose A. M. Shelton, Attorney
611 Pine Creek Road P. O.. Box 4486
Walnut Creek, Calif. 94598 Walnut Creek, Calif. 94596
AAD/v
cc: File 2243-RZ
Diablo Engineers
Supervisor, District: I, II, III, IV, V.
Attachments: Resolution on Report, Findings Map, Staff Report.
Resolution No. 20-1979
REPORT OF THE COUNTY PLANNING M MISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CAL-
IFORNIA, TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SAID COUN'T'Y, ON THEIR REFERRAL OF THE REZON-
ING APPLICATION OF DIABLO ENGINEERS (APPLICANT), JERRY GEERNAERT (OWNER), (2243-RZ),
IN THE ORDINANCE CODE SECTION PERTAINING TO THE PRECISE ZONING FOR THE WALNUT CREEK
AREA OF SAID COUNTY.
WHEREAS, a request by DIABLO ENGINEERS (Applicant), JERRY GEERNAERT (Owner),
(2243-RZ), to rezone approximately 4.09 acres in the Walnut Creek area from General
Agricultural District (A-2) to Single Family Residential District (R-40), was received
by the County Planning Department on May 1, 1978; and
WHEREAS, after proceedings duly, regal.arly and lawfully taken and had, the
County Planning Commission filed with the Board of Supervisors a certified and
attested copy of recommendations on the aforementioned application; and
WHEREAS, the County Planning Cormnission recommended to the Board of Supervisors
APPROVAL of a change in zoning from General Agricultural District (A-2) to Single Fam-
ily Residential District (R-65) in lieu of the applicant's request for Single Family
Residential District (R-40); and
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, January 23, 1979, the Board of Supervisors after having
heard the subject application and recommendation with proceedings prescribed by law,
referred the subject application back to the Planning Commission with the recommenda-
tion that "additional information was submitted indicating that public water and sewer
would be provided to the site" and requesting reconsideration based on this new evi-
dence; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof was duly and regularly given, a public hearing
and reconsideration was had by the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, February
27, 1979; and
WHEREAS, the applicant's attorney appeared and presented the new evidence to
the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, property owners in the immediate and surrounding areas also appeared
and spoke on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission CLOSED the public hearing and fully reviewed,
considered and evaluated all of the testimony, evidence and new evidence submitted
in this matter; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission hereby
reports to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa on the Board's
referral of January 23, 1979, relative to the rezoning request of DIABLO ENGINEERS,
(Applicant), JERRY GEERNAERT (Owner), (2243-RZ), that in view of the new evidence
r i
Resolution No. 20-1979
submitted, the County Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors
APPROVAL of the requested change from General Agricultural District (A-2) to Single
Family Residential District (R-40), CONDITIONALLY, as follows:
1. The Central Sanitary District's sewer system shall be extended to the
property to serve all lots within any minor subdivision of the subject
property
2. Potable water, approved by the County Health Department, shall be
provided from a source approved by the County Health Department to
serve all lots within any minor subdivision of the subject property.
3. No subdivision or rezoning of the property shall be permitted without
being subject to the above conditions.
Said recommendations are set forth and delineated on the map entitled: MT.
DIABLO DIVISION, SECTOR 4, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, which map is attached
hereto and made a part hereof; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman and Secretary of this Planning
Commission shall sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver
the same to the Board of Supervisors all in accordance with the Government Code of
the State of California.
The instruction by the Planning Conunission to prepare this resolution was
given by motion of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27, 1979, by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Milano, Young, Phillips, Brombacher,
Compaglia.
NOES: Commissioners - Anderson, Walton.
ABSENT: Commissioners - None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None.
I, William V. Walton, III, Chairman of the Planning Commission of the
County of Contra Costa, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing was
duly called and held in accordance with the law on Tuesday, March 6, 1979, and that
this resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the following vote of
this Planning Commission:
-2 0002?
A
Resolution No. 20-1979
AYES: Commissioners - Anderson, Compaglia, Milano,
Young, Brombacher, Walton.
NOES: Commissioners - None.
ABSENT: Commissioners - Phillips.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None.
Lofe Planning Commiss
ion nof t
County of Contra Costa, State of California
ATTEST:
04 S cre f the P Commi ion of the
of Contra C sta, State of California
RECEIVED
MAR 9 1919
J. R. OLSSON
CLERK BOgRD 2 SUPERVISO,
8 —OMT C STA Co.
-...De
000225
-3-
a + A-2
Rezone i. ` ; r
From "To R-40 t F_ftLj
A-4
IF
J r;"
l" =4000' � ,/ '. ,� '`.�"'•� � �..
1, WILLIAM V. WALTON, III, Chairman of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission, State of California, do hereby certify
that this is a true and correct copy of mT. olABL9 DIV1stinNT
SE-r-130EL 4,,CONTRA msTA d utg324CALlEQEL i&.
indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning
Commission in the matter of DIA5L-o ENGINEERIt,r, 1 r4c.
2243-RZ Report to the iReferral _
/ tFairman of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission, State of Calif.
ATTEST:
ecretar o the C�pntra Costa �nty
Plannin Commission, State of Calif.
Findings I1(Iap
t40z;;?r.�
CO* COSTA COUNTY PLANNING DEPART*i
NOTICE OF
Completion of Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
Lead Agency Other Responsible Agency
Contra Costa County
c/o Planning Department
P.O. Box 951
Martinez, California 94553
Phone (415) 372-2035
Phone
EIR Contact Person Kristin Ohlson
Contact Person
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DIABLO ENGINEERS INC. (Applicant) - J. GEERNAERT (Owner),
County File #2243-RZ: The applicant requests to rezone approximately 4.09 acres
from General Agricultural District (A-2) to Single Family Residential District
(R-40). Subject property fronts 392 feet on the east side of Pine Greek Road,
approximately 2,900 feet southeast of Castle Rock Road, in the Walnut Creek area.-
(CT
rea:(CT 3383)
The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. This appli-
cation is consistent with the recently approved South Ygnacio Valley General Plan
Amendment, however, development of the site may be constrained by soils with
septic tank limitations and availability of a reliable water supply. These
concerns and the request for large lot area variances can be addressed in the
staff report.
It is determined from initial study by Kristin Ohlson of the
Planning Department that this project does not have a significant
effect on the environment.
Justification for negative declaration is attached.
The Environmental Impact Report is available for review at the below
address:
Contra Costa County Planning Department
4th Floor, North Wing, Administration Bldg.
Pine & Escobar Streets
�, Martinez, California
Dat Post d Q6.F_ L(� 1m 20 Final date for review/appear
}
By
Planning Depart ent Representative ,.
C 02
AP9 1/74
Contra Costa County
Planning Department
PLANNING COHIISSION MEETING
Tuesday,, February 27, 1979
DIABLO ENGINEERS (Applicants) - JERRY GEERNAERf (Owner) 2243-RZ
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a request to rezone approximately 4.04 acres from Getivral Agrirultuix
District A-2 to Single FnmL.ly Resldeutial. 111siriet R-40. subje;rt i�ruln rf>
fronts 372 l'oet on the east side of Pine C1-eek Road, approX11WI .01y 2,900 ieet
southeast of Castle Rock Road, in 'the Walnut Creek area.
II. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Present Zoning: General Agriculture A-2.
B.' Requested Zoning: Single Family Residential R-40.
C. General Plan Designation: Single Family - Very Low Density - South Ygnacio
.Valley General Plan.
D. Present Land Use: Vacant except for small vacant barn. A 25 foot drive-
way easement transects the site.
E. Proposed Land Use: Four single family residences.
F. Surrounding Land Use: Large lot single family residences.
G. EIR Status: Negative Declaration.
H. Concurrent Applications: MS 109-78.
III. PREVIOUS ACTION
This item was heard by the Commission on July 5, 1978 and continued to
July 18, 1978*where it was approved for R-65. At the request of the applicant,
2243-RZ was reconsidered on August 29, 1978, but the reconsideration was
denied. The Board of Supervisors considered this item on October 3, 1978,
November 14, 1978, January 2, 1979 and January 23, 1979 whereupon additional
information was submitted indicating that public water and sewer would be
provided to the site. The Board then referred this rezoning back to the
Planning. Conunission for reconsideration of the request based upon the new
information.
Diablo Engineers/2243-RZ Page Two
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Nature of Request
The applicant requests the R-40 zoning in order to subdivide the parcel
into 4 lots, 2 lots being less than the 40,000 square feet and requiring
variances of 1,700 and 1,370 square feet.
B. Surrounding Land Use
Large lot single family residences, agricultural preserves within tt mile
to east; open space to south. Adjacent parcel sites are 5 acres, 1.2
acres, 1.1 acres, .93 acres and .47 acres.
C. Environmental Considerations
The site is not served by either a public water or sewer. system. The
site is within the sphere of influence of the Central Sanitary District
but not within the District's boundaries. It is outside the Contra
Costa County Water District. It is within the Castle' Rock Water District
at the present time. Therefore, water for lots proposed under MS 10978
would have to come from wells on each lot approved by the County Health
Department. The Health Department does not permit both a well and septic
tank on lots less than 40,000 square feet, thus the applicants' original
subdivision should be revised and the number of lots should be reduced.
These concerns can be addressed in depth in the staff report on the
minor subdivision.
At the Board of Supervisors hearing of January 23, 1979, Mr. Arthur M.
Shelton, attorney for the, applicant, submitted a statement claiming
that this rezoning had not been fully heard by the Commission, because
it recommended R-65 zoning based on the need for both septic tanks and
wells. Mr. Shelton stated that the property would be served by public
water and sewer lines.
However, Mr. William 11. Ambrose of the Castle Rock Water District has
stated that the County Health Department has prohibited any further
residenti'al hookups in the District. In addition, Mr. J. McCoy of the
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District has stated that no plans exist
for the extension of sewer lines onto Pine Creek Road. Consequently,
the applicant could extend a sewer .Line clown fine Creek Road at their
own expense if they so wished, but this would involve approximately
3,000 feet of sewer line, which might prove economically infeasible.
No request has been made to annex the subject property to either the
Contra Costa Water District or the Central Sanitation District, according
to Joseph.Connery of the County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).
Diablo Engineers/2243-RZ Page Three
D. Conclusion
There are several constraints to development of the property at R-40
densities. The Health Department requires at least 40,000 square feet
to accommodate a well and septic tank but this area has experienced
problems with inadequate percolation tests and therefore larger .lots
might be necessary to accommodate septic tanks. The site is constrained
by the 25 foot road easement which transects the site in an east-west
direction. This easement necessitates substantial lot area variances
fortwo of the four lots proposed under MS 109-78 (1,700 and 1,370 square
feet) at a R-40 density. .
In addition, the character of the area is generally one of larger parcels
than those proposed under R-40. Parcels of between one and five acres
surround the site on three sides.
Considering the Health Department requirements, the road easement through
the middle of the property and the character of the surrounding area,
staff considers the R-40 density to be inappropriate. A R-65 zoning
would be more compatible with the constraints of the site and with the
surrounding area.
V. STAFF RECOMIENDATION
Adopt a resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors rezone the
land in 2243-RZ from General Agriculture District A-2 -to Single Family
Residential District R-65.
KO.plp
5/26/78
BB:plp
2/1/79
HEB:jyl
2/15/79
�0(1
A-4-
A-
4 n z
Rezone ,i
From �Z To R-40 t - F-R '
-z
r =4000' -
I� WILLIAM V. WALTON, III, Chairman of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission, State of California, do hereby certify
that this is a true and correct copy of MT. DIA81_O DIVISIDNi
SE-c.ToR 4, CONTRA CESTA COUNTY. CALIFnRN\11A.
indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning
Commission in the matter of DIA5UO ENGINEERIt�C-,. INC.
2243-RZ Report to the Boar qn. Referral
/ C airman of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission, State of Calif.
ATTEST
ecretart� o the Contra Costa Cd6nty
PlonningjCommission, State of Calif. Findings 1'i/lap
In the Board of Supervisors
of
Contra Costa County, State of California
Tanunry 94 -.019 4-9-
In the Matter of
Hearing on the Request of Diablo
Engineers, Inc. (2243-RZ) to
Rezone Land in the Walnut Creek
Area.
Dr. Jerry Geernaert, Owner.
The Board on January 2, 1979 having continued to this
date the hearing on the recommendation of the County Planning
Commission with respect to the request of Diablo Engineers, Inc.
(2243-RZ) to rezone land in the Walnut Creek area; and
Mr. Arthur Shelton, attorney representing Dr. Jerry
Geernaert, owner, having submitted a January 22, 1979 letter to
the Board requesting that the aforesaid rezoning matter be referred
back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration;
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that rezoning application
2243-RZ is REFERRED back the Planning Commission.
PASSED by the Board on January 23, 1979.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the
minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid.
Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of
cc: Diablo Engineers, Inc. Supervisors
Dr. Geernaert affixed this-day of January 19 79
Mr. Shelton
Mr. Ambrose
Mx. S char ��' LSSON, Clerk
Mr. IrwinB Deputy Clerk
Rolf & Isabel Kvalvik y
Director of Planning �onda�dahl
000225.
H-24 4/77 15m
k
LAW OF O'ICES
ARTHUR M. SHELTON RECEIVED
ED
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
P O.BOX 4486
2815 MITCHELL DRIVE,SUITE 200
WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94596 '-
(415) 937-0110
1,
January 22, 1979 CL ARD .....A. Vf
Hon. Chairman and Members
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Subject: 2243-RZ (Dr. Geernaert)
The Applicant, Dr. Geernaert, respectfully requests
that the Board refer this matter back to the County
Planning Commission to reconsider its recommendation of
R-64:r so that the Applicant may have either R-40 or a
Planned Unit development with 4 residences on this
4-acre parcel. The reasons for this request are as
follows:
1. The matter has not been fully heard by the
Commission. At its July 18, 1978 hearing, the Commission
recommended R-65 or 1-1/2 acre zoning because it was
thought that the property would not be connected to the
sewer system and would be served by septic tank. This
is not the case. All 4 lots requested will be connected
to a sewer main extended to the property. The same is
true of water. R-40 zoning to permit 4 lots may be made
conditional on these main extensions (26-2. 26 County
Ordinance Code) .
Applicant retained counsel who formally requested
a re-hearing by the Planning Commission which was granted.
However, when the re-hearing was scheduled, no notice of
the hearing date was mailed to Applicant or his counsel.
Since there was no appearance by the persons requesting
the re-hearing, the Commission did not change its recom-
mendation from R-65 to R-40.
2. Other development in the area is at densities
far higher than R-40. A general vicinity map is appended
(Exhibit A) . The attached aeriel photograph (Exhibit B)
shows the surrounding development with the subject property
outlined in red. It is near Northgate High School which
appears in the left center. The subdivisions northwest
LAW OFFICES
ARTHUR M, SHELTON
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Hon. Chairman and .Members
Contra Costa Co. Board of Supervisors
January 22, 1979
Page 2
of the property are all built out to Walnut Creek's medium
density single family residence classification which pro-
vides a range from 2.5 to 4 dwelling units per acre. The
property is within the sphere of influence of Walnut Creek
whose General Plan allows up to a maximum of 2 dwelling
units per acre on the subject property (Exhibit C) . Other
property adjacent to the subject property has been
split off into 1-acre parcels.
3. R-65 would result in an uneconomic, wasteful
development. At R-65 the staff would permit only 2 dwelling
units to be constructed on this 4-acre parcel. This is flat
land. It is clearly in the path of future Northgate area
growth. It would be uneconomical to extend sewer and water
service to serve only 2 dwelling units. Land must be divided
into economically attractive parcels if the growth needs of
the community are to be realized.
We respectfully request that this matter be referred
back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.
Arthur M.- Shel on
Attorney for Applicant
AMS/mjdl/8-9
t /
' •� .� Y t Y�[y €fl t C tat��R � � _ � r-
L;.�e•Jr" ��.y� r (l ,,; � A.. v � li`.-� i t I 1 �.. "S 'i ..,5...— :�'.. '
Ct
�..C"� _��' �".-s ...•.tet � Y l � 1 f f , I �_-._ _ I I1'!' _ • ._. _. ._ - _
.ul.cver,.•'t� �S \ �.c'e - - '1 �, �JfJ� ._lY 411 .. _ -.
.41
r ♦tit 1 .'cstl 1 +a fil\1 , yt Ili �. .1 .) I
(Ogg ti i
r i����`'" �� 1� \` �•;��•M Gr jt. .�ci.--..:I.�.ttt `r/_�._, i._._-'.. .. . .. .
. 1 '
"pt:c / ,.r cl
Zc—
DA
ftLv
'"'RcsM t aMc►
f.XblIBIT �
'4+►gyp►
!!f" l � t y' .,iii� � a�� y t'�►a•�.r5...^'.Y"� �y� � Y'Z�� .,•. ,
P w w'��••s*s..4'�i� "4i`rr T,, `�°4',�,ci�rJ� ,,� ;-
+�� �'�.}. .� �''.a✓Y:'�St'�1in;��'. •�' .�,s"i•.iia:
� Y 'f- •1T�...E r�t �. �.} � ]fly`;..
.r*_ r\'\�✓3 y, s���O..,.....n 1.�s�.fr'� "`- �''�j4 Vii«- �r-. �C*'k yt..,���5„"�_(+„�
ILA
......E-^"•" �y'l -.}��1 7 ♦ r � - 5� ., �'.-x��j;.: G",}^'..f�
• L�j�; \
-Al
-� ,l ��\ `l t A►.s'K►� �+� �.aC19���Hr'-�..r i•��'t".�i4�� �'. .i::;:'�.-�«:y�'�`�
E•�:r..+l - -,�j�^' �,"+-.o{ �'�.ai��41�1t^'•'^�r5��t�.• }�(f 1�•+
i .!itis ���. '`s`• f_...".�� �'���.�.�
rJ! i L rr^ti+ ♦ t4" ++��
i'w{{r'�yyx��.�4��"x.,,i 4 t}.",Jrt i -... ..-... t .+•i +� .'• �:} r�N, y,.n =
,+l k:i�ti.•�i-.e�.5 L� '�� �•1� t �l~ 5 i :'i2 J ::.�`� �J 'r'!!�
�'i" ='t'`' r L��. ;rM ,� �''•+ •mow + �q;��.'ki� ::..�'h'• r.•.��
, ��i � •�`� �x ..'� w r;����r •y����.Ott
' r ' w fi y w. -w �.u„wrrr.♦ww 1+ ,,'^'�.�• •..', y �'
.i �`:�•• "+ .a '� r 11. w,rt •_r§i'? 1+1 1 v.w3. +.+.s +'s �yr•.�.:• *'aa'i�y.�RR. � ,�
. ir�.'w.'�'S� "'tt.°F� e � �w.w�.r,::w'.ns*ti wwM' • - w+:�.s•:"..f.'
♦Y tr .�.f� r+, "�. �,''ii�� 1: �� �+�.�ii.���I/�i ww • �L • i� .!..r S�' "S
Y S+'!'::'�'.-i t i+x ..ay�•�'�«w S"'J�,..+ ,,.'Z�a� ♦ � 1. s.
ra '�i.+'wt.,:•:�:�"' -,y't ���"}:t "i��t '!.wllrw,a;l•'.'.' ., � , ,y •+'1�"• .
►y,�- '.t. �--•3'�yi LFl #� +y�rNS„t�l.+~�(•,�_�* J•::'i.•'�".J�,J�,�'S S y. .!��i5 E.Sw+�W%e.
;" ,.i"r w"F'+h'--' "'73=�w'f*w,zr +ice + + ��x '�•',:�,
O". y-w ^'�.I
- ✓ e ��•y" r +`��Fr f'+i'•'R Ser rJ '.f S•lti�Yw.i,�'���� `,.,,, :s:e�yq.��,
:1 .„w�.•, � '`(i' �E' !r�,.,.�r '+►c�"i''h_ i 3
tk 31
s-
EXHIBIT
r � 1• � �'s1 f � � -';� "-�'��1 a e
.1•' .fir ;• .'• -t-_-_-__-_- - _—
:v' � Yr;�.a.:,'T' ,;:.1::4 -i. . _ •y�:; •.T.'(-� •,'•' _ '-/tl>� :;•,fir .:�. ..... -_ ---�— ------- `
--,='-r. .i,.),1T '1. •'.1�.;a``r .'1' f•'•'"L:r'-1 :it ----
:i-rte, •�,".r^t: �\,,,✓ ✓.:.� -:�'' .1--�f. rZ;:.' .5� 1,:•--• 'i' ���4=. _ __._ ---__-'----- -
1�:'.I•_C:. :moi-�'�:�':�:�..'��:�L:: �y`-r,.rl("',`�'.`:y��''• ;L-.R.--!"'.'j-.93 jlc y``.'�h';'..+� - —__._-_ ___.
"'�r�'til�j'i_1"`.,•YT1�.-+L•.. _.- .'�:Tfi'.� '�-•�- �. _• �L:':)'.�. :F.i,_. _ .1 _� -- _
„J
.?` { .� •r-. ori. 's- •_;: 1: — - -------==i`�
L^ —
�A%"�r .v,_. '.�':• _._ :'
,.r, ,r:. •�., .�: .y':;.•,•.�., ;-:�• �1, .•,,,cam;: i _
..:'f' ;`fix~ :�:�;��'�" �if:�_�:'....• ;;�-"�;' - -"�''•�"_ !f — ��
•t"�•. _ :� �. �•:rty,.� .A! :�,,-.'moi:��. �-. - --:y.�:`^^�''' ..fEZ-% r' .:••��:/'i:�til. 1 \ _. _ _ ---
C_ jC .{.�,.:•..`Y. �.� �'•.r- � T:.� .+ ,. ••t'-:-.- _ -•-••.77; _-. _Y,rb .1. �:L; j�.l'. •o*.:•: -J- `\ \T-_.__-._ -_-_----------
S. \ Z' ."
�'. n:-,jy�-; ` _ _ _=-1- 't':�:: _- •,l' ,il•7�t,:.i•.'7:-rr�f,;_-' - ......�...� 1 _-'-- - - �--
_ - - :. '::f=,-' Vii'.'• f -:;',' - - '�-1.-.:� �i--1��• ���M�'a.,.':.' ��'�'-1%i' �L:::` --'_'- .. - `\�'-_--- -- •----- --
i-' :71.�. r _ j_.�f...,... •iti• �..'. t`* �., r _%I' j.. '72!,yw� -_-.. -/ -------- --'-.•-- 1 _ --_-__ z
- s -. � � S• -yam � t- �S{iy5�._`_1.:(:._.{:...,..,.�...'v...:rr { � <. } � •. -_-_' \� ----
`~�'�
-2.5 d!..��7r
1 );`�y
t �
- \. i•.. s
- ----- — Open Sraca (0-2 du/ac)
EX111131T
is 10
In the Board of Supervisors
of
Contra Costa County, State of California
January 2 . 197
In the Matter of
Hearing on the Request of Diablo
Engineers, Inc. (2243-RZ) to
Rezone Land in the Walnut Creek
Area.
Mr. Jerry Geernaert, Owner.
The Board on November 14, 1978 having continued to this
date the hearing on the recommendation of the County Planning
Commission with respect to the request of Diablo Engineers, Inc.
(2243-RZ) to rezone land in the Walnut Creek area; and
Chairman R. I. Schroder having advised that the attorney
representing the applicant had requested a further continuance-of
the matter;
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid hearing
is CONTINUED to January 23, 1979 at 10:30 a.m.
PASSED by the Board on January 2, 1979.
1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the
minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid.
Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of
cc: Diablo Engineers, Inc. Supervisors
Mr. Arthur Shelton affixed this 2nd da of January 19 78
Mr. Jerry Geernaert y —
Mr. W. M. Ambrose
Mr. Robert S char R. SSON, Clerk
Mr. George Irwin
Rolf & Isabel Kvalvik BY y�eputy Clerk
Director of Planning onda Amdahl
H-24 4/77 15m
L i 1j _J1 6, 1978
RE��
PETITION -9- 1,979
J. R. OISSON
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
re: file #2243-PZ sONT ^O ACO.
rzt..
We,the undeissigned, residents of Pine Creek Road, in the Walnut Creek area,
wish to inform the Planning Commission of Contra Costa County that we agree
with the Planning Staff's recommendation regarding the rezoning application
of Dr. Jerry Geeraaert, County file # 2243-RZ. Staff has recommended R-65
zoning which is entirely in keeping with the current density in the immediate
area.
We are concerned that Dr. Geernaert's requested R-40 zoning will result
in the destruction of the rural atmosphere prevalent in the Pine Creek Valley.
We also feel your decision based on the assumption that Treated Water might
come into our area is wrong,
/. y,,,rix /-i ,/;�'�> •_;� � :�-_
03 l�
l �
i
C, fh C1.t►� 1L Q U L N
At 1".,Al•72
bot rats cer��c �Q � r°`�C�o225
ZT
V� J
60th
/4�
LG'.L' ��`��`y�li+•-- - W/LL l�M !t. ISI t 5 S et�1
`L C��"',��`"`�,�
020 0 �..,� Gr.�t.•E. �Q, �o a.,,� � ��-��.
��cosca,
�Y1 aw v�
x
♦ •
In the Board of Supervisors
of
Contra Costa County, State of California
November 14 ' 19 ]g
In the Matter of
Hearing on Request of Diablo
Engineers, Inc. (2243-RZ) to
Rezone Land in the Walnut Creek
Area.
Jerry Geernaert, Owner.
The Board on October 3, 1978 having continued to this
date the hearing on the recommendation of the County Planning
Commission with respect to the request of Diablo Engineers, Inc.
(2243-RZ) to rezone land in the Walnut Creek area; and
Chairman R. I. Schroder having advised that the attorney
representing the applicant had requested a further continuance of
the matter;
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid hearing
is continued to January 2, 1979 at 10:30 a.m.
PASSED by the Board on November 14,_1978.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the
minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid.
c c: Diablo Engineers, Inc. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of
Mr. Arthur Shelton Supervisors
Mr. Jerry Geernaert affixed this 14thday of November 19 78
Mr. W. M. Ambrose
Mr. Robert Schar
Mr. George Irwin J. R. OLSSON, Clerk
Rolf & Isabel Kvalvik gy �ff `/ryc�:�cc l� Deputy Clerk
Director of Planning M. Vannucchi
00022F--
H-24 4/77 15m
6 0
In the Board of Supervisors
of
Contra Costa County, State of California
October 3 , 19 7L
In the Matter of
Hearing on Request of
Diablo Engineers, Inc. ,
(2243-RZ) to Rezone Land in
the Walnut Creek Area.
Jerry Geernaert (Owner).
The Board on September 5, 1978 having fixed this date
for hearing on the recommendation of the County Planning Commission
with respect to the request of Diablo Engineers, Inc. (2243-RZ) to
rezone land in the Walnut Creek area from General Agricultural
District (A-2) to Single Family Residential District (R-65), in
lieu of Single Family Residential District (R-40) as requested by
the applicant; and
Chairman R. I. Schroder having declared the hearing open
asked if there were any persons wishing to speak on the aforesaid
proposal, and having noted that no one in the audience wished to
speak; and
Chairman Schroder having advised that Mr. Arthur Shelton,
attorney representing the applicant, had requested that the matter
be continued to a later date; and
Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED
that the hearing on the rezoning request of Diablo Engineers, Inc.
is CONTINUED to November 14, 1978 at 10:30 a.m.
PASSED by the Board on October 3, 1978.
1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered an the
minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid.
Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of
cc: Diablo Engineers, Inc. Supervisors
Mr. Arthur Shelton affixed this 3rd day of October 1978
Mr. Jerry Geernaert
Mr. W. M. Ambrose J. R. OLSSON, Clerk
Mr. Robert Schar
Irwin
Mr. George Irwin By- G��-a- 7�1e �-- . Deputy Clerk
Rolf & Isabel Kvalvik Vera Nelson
Director of Planning
H-24417715m
PROOF OF PUBLICAC►N This spa*for County Clerk's Filing Stamp
(2015.5 C.C.P.) F L E D
19
78
STATE OF CALIFORNIA J. R.OLSSON
SEP 2#Iwo
CLER 80kRD OF SUPERVISORS R. ptSSOV , Goutrl Glelli
County of Contra Costo Orr COSTA CO. CONfiR i COSTA COUNTY
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid;t am over the age of eighteen years,
and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled
matter. Proof of Publication of
Notice of Public Hearing
1 am the Principal Legal Clerk of the Contra Costa Times,
A newspaper of general circulation, printed and pub- TxEOiPttBttt tJ11iINti
+i tX111Mt�1� �4 ;
fished at 2640 Shadelands Drive in the City of Walnut .,SURHryppltadt
Creek,County of Contra Costa,94598 €Ji
�REiCAkEl4
ti�1tCBlt bKrir� art on�
And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper >Ptcfc�Mr ',
asup..oarttm�+�w�'
of general circulation by the Superior Court of the Coun-
ty of Contra Costa,State of California,under the date of
ot:DiaWo.Enlli"wriiInc
October 22,1934.Case Number 19764. WpOM�M'"t "ei"
t� Warrcc #oBM+}
iM
�j, Gwo y1�+n
The notice,of which the annexed is a printed copy(set in iotaWoi+ Mrfu6�etlrndis
type not smaller than nonpareil),has been published in
410,C0110w,
f+A t
each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not f� ifMila0M*1Of-
�,6web�Mn�'
in any supplement thereof on the following dates,to-wit. ,tr. tod fat�tnr !eftt^i�
September 19,
Nt itNiYf iiMMn t+"tM�A4
ron s>i H»
all in the year of 19 7$. RNs
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the anp�eLOM s dot
'eowtd tlw
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Walnut Creek,California, Pu1>t Yg 1978
On this 19 day of September 19_78.
00 P1,0
51
ignature
East Say Newspapers,Inc.
Contra Costa Times
PROOF OF PUBLICATION P.O.Box 5088
Walnut Creek,Ca.94596
(415)935.2525
The Board of Suoery&rs Contra ^am±,R.Q:ssas
o�rty Cts:i did
Ea D;:icS,C,.ri of:::e noa.0
Ccunty Administration Building Costa
P.O.Box 911 { Chiet C"e%
Nlartiriez,Caiifornia 91553 Col�n`y (?ti)3M.217t
James P.Kenny-Richmond
151 District •'''
Nancy C.FahCen-Marthaz
2nd District >
Robert t.Schroder-Latayetta -
Zed Dis:rfct
Wjre N.Saggwa-Concord
4;h District _
Eric H.Ra»•iti"-Pittsburg September 6, 1978
Sth District
• y .
Contra Costa Times
P. 0. Box. 5088
Walnut Creek, Ca. 9+596
Gentlemen:
Re: Purchase Order ¢; 29346
Enclosed is Notice of Public Hearing on the request
of Diablo Engineers, inc. (2243RZ) to rezone land in tfie
Walnut Creek Area.
which we wish you to publish on September 19, 1978
Please sign the enclosed card and return it to this
office.
TZnIEDLkTELY upon the expiration of publicatioa,
send us an affidavit of publication in order that the
Auditor may be authorized to pay your bill.
Very truly yours,
J. R. OLSSO:V, CLEFUK
By
M. Vannucchl
Deputy Clerk
15.4 -
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON A PLANNING 11ATTER
WALNUT CREEK AREA
NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday
October 3, 1978 , at 1:30 P.M. in oom 7
of the County Administration Building, corner of Pine and Escobar
Streets, Martinez, California, -the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors will hold' a public hearing to consider the following
planning matter:
Recommendation of the County Planning Commission
on the request of Diablo Engineers, Inc. (2243-RZ) to rezone land
from General Agricultural District (A-2) to Single Family
Residential District (R-65), in lieu of Single Family Residential
District (R-40) as originally requested.
The location of the subject land is within the
unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa, State of
California, generally identified as follows (a more precise
description may be examined in the office of Director of Planning,
County Administration Building, Martinez, California):
Approximately 4.04 acres fronting 392 feet on the
east side of Pine Creek Road, approximately 2,900 feet southeast
of Castle Rock Road in the Walnut Creek Area.
By order of the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Contra Costa, State of California.
Date: September 5, 1978•
J. R. OLSSON, County Clerk and
ex officio Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors of the County of
Contra Costa, State of California
By � //a. .ti
M. Vannucchi Deputy C er
000225-1
• !
In the Board of Supervisors
of
Contra Costa County, State of California
September 5 , 19 78
In the Matter of
Report of the County Planning
Commission on the Request of
Diablo Engineers, Inc., Applicant,
(2243-RZ) to Rezone Land in the
Walnut Creek Area.
Jerry Geernaert (Owner).
The Director of Planning having notified this Board
that the County Planning Commission recommends approval of the
request of Diablo Engineers, Inc. (2243-RZ) to rezone approxi-
mately 4,04 acres fronting 392 feet on the east side of Pine Creek
Road, approximately 2,900 feet southeast of Castle Rock Road in the
Walnut Creek Area from General Agricultural District (A-2) to
Single Family Residential District (R-65), in lieu of Single
Family Residential District (R-40) as originally requested;
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that a hearing be held on
Tuesday, October 3, 1978 at 1:30 p.m, in the Board Chambers,
Room 107 Administration Building, Pine and Escobar Streets,
Martinez, California, and that pursuant to code requirements,
the Clerk publish notice of same in the CONTRA COSTA TIMES.
PASSED by the Board on September 5, 1978.
1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the
minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid.
cc: Diablo Engineers, Inc. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of
Jerry Geernaert Supervisors
W. M. Ambrose
Robert Schar affixed this 5th day of September , 1978
Rolf & Isabel Kvalvik
George Irwin J. R. OLSSON, Clerk
Director of Planning By � � Deputy Clerk
M. Vannucchi
H-244/7715m oon225
I
a RECEIVED
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AU G 1 1978
PLANNING DEPARTMENT J. R. OLSSON
CLERK SOARD OF SUPERVISORS
1A........e..
TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: 26 July 1978
Contra Costa County
FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesu' SUBJECT: REZONING: Diablo Engineers, Inc.
Director of Planni (Applicants), Jerry Geernaert (Owner) 2243-RZ,
Approx., 4.04 Ac., A-2 to R-65 (S.D. III)
Attached is Planning Commis �.. Resolutlon No. 58-1978, adopted by the Planning
Commission on Tuesday, 25 July 1978, by unanimous vote of the Commission (All members
Present).
This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on Tuesday, 5 July 1978; viewed
by the Commission on field trip 14 July 1978, and approved for change from General Agri-
cultural District (A-2) to Single Family Residential District (R-65), in lieu of the
R-40 zoning requested by the applicant and owner.
The property is described as being located 392-ft., on the east side of Pine Creek
Road, approximately 2,900-ft., southeast of Castle Rock Road in the Walnut Creek Area.
The following people should be notified of your Board's hearing date and time:
Diablo Engineers, Inc. (Applicant) Mr. Robert Schar
3230 Clayton Road 575 Pine Creek Road r
Concord, Calif. 94521 Walnut Creek, Calif. 94598
Attn: J. Calabrigo
Jerry Geernaert
Jerry Geernaert (Owner) 3234 Del Mar Drive
401 Gregory Lane Lafayette, Calif. 94549
Pleasant Hill, Calif. 94523
Rolf & Isabel Kvalvik �,- O ;7_.�(
Mr. W. M. Ambrose ✓ Post Office Box 3015
611 Pine Creek Road Walnut Creek, Calif. 94598
Walnut Creek, Calif. 94598 -
��
O' k1b.
AAD/v
Attachments: Resolution, Findings Map, Area map, Neg.EIR, Staff Report, Minutes.
cc: File 2243-RZ
Diablo Engineers, Inc.
Supervisors, District: I, II, III, Iv, V.
1
7-0
en- G C_ t
;1` _..7 _
�0 ' �,:.�
w �
Resolution No. 58-1978
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RECOI,1MENDATIONS ON THE REQUESTED CHANGE
IN ZONING BY DIABLO ENGINEERS, INC., (APPLICANT), JERRY GEERNAERT (OWNER), (2243-
RZ), IN THE ORDINANCE CODE SECTION PERTAINING TO THE PRECISE ZONING FOR THE WALNUT
CREEK AREA OF SAID COUNTY.
WHEREAS, a request by DIABLO ENGINEERS, INC. (Applicant), JERRY GEERNAERT
(Owner), (2243-RZ), to rezone land in the Walnut Creek area from General Agri-
cultural District (A-2) to Single Family Residential District (R-40), was received
by the Planning Department office on May 1, 1978; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance was posted on
this application on June 2, 1978; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof was lawfully given, a public hearing was held
by the Planning Commission on Tuesday, July 5, 1978, whereat all persons interested
therein might appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on Tuesday, July 5, 1978, CLOSED the public
hearing in order to view the site and surrounding area on field trip; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on Friday, July 14, 1978, visited the subject
property; and
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, July 18, 1978, at a CLOSED hearing, the Planning Commiss-
ion fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted
in this matter; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the
Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, that the rezoning request of
DIABLO ENGINEERS, INC. (Applicant), JERRY GEERNAERT (Owner), (2243-RZ), be APPROVED
as to the change from General Agricultural District (A-2) to Single Family Resident-
ial District (R-65), in lieu of the R-40 zoning requested by the applicant and
owner; and that this zoning change be made as is indicated on the findings map
entitled: MT. DIABLO DIVISION, SECTOR 4, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, which
is attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this recommendation are as follows:
(1) The County Health Department requires at least 40,000 sq. ft., in this area to
accommodate both a well and septic tan; but, the area has experienced problems with
inadequate percolation tests; therefore, larger lots might be necessary to accommo-
date septic tanks. (2) The site is constrained by a 25-ft., road easement which
transects the site in an east-west direction. This easement necessitates substantial
lot area variances for two of the four lots proposed under Minor Subdivision 109-78
000,2.23
Resolution 110. 58-1978
(1,770 sq. ft., and 1,370 sq. ft.) at the R-40 density. (3) In addition, the
character of the area is generally one of larger parcels than those proposed
under the requested R-40 Zoning and parcels of between one and five acres sur-
round the site on three sides.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman and Secretary of this Commission
shall sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same
to the Board of Supervisors all in accordance with the Government Code of the
State of California.
The instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was
given by motion of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, July 18, 1978, by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Milano, Stoddard, Phillips, Compaglia,
Walton, Anderson.
NOES: Commissioners - Andrew H. Young.
ABSENT: Commissioners - None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None.
I, Donald E. Anderson, Chairman of the Planning Commission of the County of
Contra Costa, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing was duly
called and held in accordance with the law on Tuesday, July 25, 1978, and that
this resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the following vote
of the Planning Commission:
AYES: Commissioners - Milano, Young, Phillips, Stoddard,
Compaglia, Walton, Anderson.
NOES: Commissioners - None.
ABSENT: Commissioners - None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None.
Cha rman of the Planning Commission of the
County of Contra Costa, State of California
ATTEST:
Se et' o the ing �'.,ioof the �0�?�
ountyf C ntra Csta, State of CaLlfornia
A,I y
A-2 ;,. ,_ _; A-2.
r ;
Rezone ! i. �/ �/
From To g i ; ► { .'.. F—R
4000' t,
i'
I. UONALD E. ANDS ,SM , Chairman of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission, State of California, do hereby certify
that this is a true and correct copy of M-C plABLO plylSlpNi
SECTOR 41 CONTRA CQSTA COLIM 4 CALIFUJIMA.,
indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning
Commission in the matter of DIA5L.0 emGINEERItaf�, ICAC.
2243—RZ
r
C rrman of the Confira Costa County
Planning Commission, State of Calif.
ATTE0002
R 1:
Secet ry of tt Contra Cos County
Plc inin Comssion, Stat of Calif. Findings Map
CONI• COSTA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTA
NOTICE 01=
Completion of Environmental Impact Report
y— Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
Lead Agency Other Responsible Agency
Contra Costa County
c/o Planning Department
P.O. Box 951
Martinez, California 94553
Phone (415) 372-2035
Phone
EIR Contact Person Kristin Ohlson
Contact Person
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DIABLO ENGINEERS INC. (Applicant) - J. GEERNAERT (Owner),
County File #2243-RZ: The applicant requests to rezone approximately 4.09 acres
from General Agricultural District (A-2) to Single Family Residential District
(R-40). Subject property fronts 392 feet on the east side of Pine Creek Road,
approximately 2,900 feet southeast of Castle Rock Road, in the Walnut Creek area.
(CT 3383)
The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. This appli-
cation is consistent with the recently approved South Ygnacio Valley General Plan
Amendment, however, development of the site may be constrained by soils with
septic tank limitations and availability of a reliable water supply. These
concerns and the request for large lot area variances can be addressed in the
staff report.
It is determined from initial study by Kristin Ohlson of the
xx Planning Department that this project does not have a significant
effect on the environment.
Justification for negative declaration is attached.
The. Environmental Impact Report is available for review at the below
address:
Contra Costa County Planning Department
4th Floor, North Wing, Administration Bldg.
Pine $ Escobar Streets
��, Martinez, California r �,,�r
Dat Post-ad �J X. /�E L �n-> Final date for review/appeal W�V�_7
s
By v,—
Planning Depart ient Representative
AP9 1/74
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Diablo Engineers (Applicant) - Jerry Geernaert (Owner)
224s-RZ
A-2 to R-40
July S, 1978
I. DIABLO ENGINEERS (Applicant) - .JERRY GEERNAERT (Owner) County File #2243 RZ:
requests to rezone approximately 4.04 acres from General Agriculture District
A-2 to Single Family Residential District R-40. Subject property fronts 372'
on the cast side of Pine Creek Road approximately 2,900' southeast of Castle
Rock Road in the Walnut Creek area.
II. GENERAL INFOILMATION:
A. Present Zoning: General Agriculture A-2
B. Requested Zoning: Single Family Residential R-40
C. General Plan Designation: Single Family - Very Low Density - South
Ygnacio Valley General Plan.
D. Present Land Use: Vacant except for small vacant barn. A 25' driveway
easement transects the site.
E. Proposed Land Use: Four single family residences.
F. Surrounding Land Use: Large lot single family residences
G. E.I.R. Status: Negative Declaration
H. Concurrent Applications: MS 109-78
III. DISCUSSION:
A. Nature of Request:
The applicant requests the R-40 zoning in order to subdivide the parcel
into 4 lots, 2 lots being less than the 40,000 square feet and requiring
variances of 1,770 and 1,370.
B. Surrounding Land Use:
Large lot single family residences, agricultural preserves within 14 mile
to east; open space to south. Adjacent parcel sites are, 5 acres, 1.2 acrres,
1.1 acres, .93 acres and .47 acres.
C. Environmental Considerations:
The site is not served by either a public water or sewer system. The site
is within the sphere of influence of the Central Sanitary District but
outside the Contra Costa County Water Distirct. It is within the Castle
Rock Water District but no new hook ups with domestic purifiers are
permitted in the Castle Rock {Vater District at the present time. Therefore
water for lots proposed under MS 109-78 would have to come from wells on
each lot approved by the County Health Department. The Health Department
does not permit both a well and septic tank on lots less than 40,000 square
feet, thus the applicants original subdivision should be revised and the
number of lots should be reduced. These concerns can be addressed in
depth in the staff report on the minor subdivision.
Diablo Engineers -2-
2243 RZ
D. Conclusion:
There are several constraints to development of the property at R-40
densities. The Health Department requires at least 40,000 square feet
to accommodate a well and septic tank but this area has expeH.enced
problems with inadequate percolation tests and therefore larger lots
might be necessary to accommodate septic tanks. The site is constrained
by the 25' road easement which transects the site in an east-west direction.
This easement necessitates substantial lot area variances for two of the
four lots proposed under AIS 109-78 (1770 and 1370) at a 11-40 density.
In addition, the character of the area is generally one of larger parcels
than those proposed under R-40. Parcels of betwoen 1 and 5 acres surround
the site on three sides.
Considering the Health Department requirements, the road easement through
the middle of the property and the character of the surrounding area, staff
considers the R-40 density to be unappropriate. An R-65 zoning would be
more compatible with the constraints of the site and with the surrounding
area.
IV. RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors rezone the land
in 2243 RZ from General Agricultural District A-2 to Single Family Residential
R-65.
KO:plp
5/26/78
FT,ZONING: PUBLIC HEAR I!i•
DIAB1..C) L'NGINEERS, INC. (Applicants) - JERRY GE1:1,MERT (Owner) - 2243-RZ
r The applicant requests to rezone 4.04 acres from General Agricu.tural District
(A-2) to Single Family Residential District (R-4J); pi�)perty fr••.)nting 392-ft.,
on the east side of fine Creek Road, approximately 2,900-ft., southeast of
Castle Rock Road: t•,'alnut Creek area. (CT-3383)
MR. BOCCIUS: The property in question is shown on this map (_ndicati.ng area on
zoning. maps). The property indicated is served by a private street and trans-
sected by a private street moving east to west.
The property is also being planned for a minor subdivision which application is
being held up until such time as the rezoning application is approved.
The property would be serviced by water and sewers through wells and septic
tanks. The County Health Department has indicated a concern as a matter of
policy for this combination for lots less than one acre in size. In this area,
the Health Department has expressed considerable concern because percolation
tests have proved difficult.
Due to the character of the lots in the area---there are some one acre lots
around the property; but, generally, you can see the agricultural perserve to
the east and larger lot sizes in the general vicinity. So, the Ritter of the
concern of the health department and their policy and the fact that physically
the property is divided by an easement which practically divides the property
in half, due to those constraints, the staff does not agree with the applicant
n and feels that a zoning of R-65 would be more appropriate.
j
The probable effect of such a zoning would be to create two rather than four,
lots on this property; 'but, we feel those property sizes are more consistent
than what the applicant is proposing---that of two one acre lots and two lots
which are less than one acre which would run against the various concerns which
I have just expressed.
Staff is recommending a rezoning to R-65 rather than to R-40. (No questions
were directed to Kr. Boccius by the Commissioners)
MR. JOSEPH CALABRIGO, 3230 Clayton Road, Concord, California. I'm wizh Diablo
Engineers, Inc. I have one question of the gentleman: What do the yellow colored
areas represent? Are those A-2 areas?
MR. BOCCIUS: Actually, the colored portions of the nap are indicative of resi-
dential development and they're to show you where the residences generally are
and the uncolored portions are to indicate where generally there are no resi-
dences at all. The black outlines show the boundaries not only of this property
but of the various zoning districts. As you can see, to the east it's largely
A-4 (Agricultural Preserves) and generally around the property, it is A-2.
MR. CALABRII'O: `]•hank you. As has been irr,licatcd, thi:: prvpc�rl.y '110 the
zoned A-2 for a minimum of 5 acre lot sizes. The owner is proposing to re .one
the property to P.-40 which is a single family residential zone calling for mini-
mum lot sizes of 40,000 sq. ft. The four lots proposed under this rezoning range
in size from 42,000+ sq. ft., to 47,000+ sq. ft. inclusive of the easement, thf
existing easement which runs tlu,ough the property. 111is would be retair.=d ,as •i1i
access easement; however fee title a,•ouL.1 go to the owners of the fou?, ,Narc6,ls.
All of the four lots proposeci e i;i •r-onformance with minimum width and depth
606 �� d a
• 1' July
-requirements as set. forth in the zoning ordinance. '?'he area where the parcel
is located falls under the jurisdiction of the South Ygnacio Valley General
r� Plan which designates the appropriate land use for this and the surrounding
areas as very low residential which further indicates that "existing resident-
ial zoning catagories of R-40 or larger parcel sizes are compatible with this
designation."
Under R-40 zoning, the proposed lots.would be consistent with the proposed land
use designation for this area.
Parcels adjacent to this parcel are also under A-2 zoning; however, they range
in size from less than 1/2 acre to an excess of 5 acres. This site is not ser-
ved by public water or sewer at this time. However, the County Health Department
does not permit the use of individual wells or septic systems in conjunction on
lot sizes of 40,000 sq. ft., or smaller. As this is the case, the applicant
is proposing to utilize one of the following two alternatives to accommodate any
potential conflicts which might occur on this property.
Alternative #1: To extend the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District
trunk line approximately 3,000 feet to provide sanitary sewer service to the
property and utilize this in combination with individual wells as the source
of domestic water.
Alternative #2: This would provide domestic water through the proposed North
Gate Water Assessment District, which is currently under formation in this
area and providing for sewage disposal through the use of individual septic
systems.
Now, because the North Gate Water Assessment District is still in the mill at
this time, the applicant has not gotten down to selecting one of these two
alternatives;however, if the Commission would see fit, the inclusion of either
one of these alternatives could be made a condition of approval at such time
as a tentative map is considered for the property.
Die utmost concern will be given to the selection of one of these two alternatives
in order to provide the most feasible or best combination of services to these It
lots proposed. The applicant himself, Mr. Geernaert is going to retain ownership
of one of these parcels on which he plans -to construct his own single family resi-
dence and as a future resident of this area, he's not interested in seeing airy
inappropriate subdivision activity take place here. Rather, I think his al
calls for lot sizes which are compatible with the lot sizes that border his own
property and the charater of the other residential development in this area.
We do feel that the zoning proposed would be appropriate and compatible with
this adjacent area. The request is consistent with both density and general
plan designation, and rill utilities and cervices will be provided in accordance
with the constraints that have been established by the County Health Depin,tment:
and fire district.
With this reasoning in mind, we are requesting approval of our application. I'd
be glad to answer any questions'?
(No questions directed to Mr. Calabrigo by the Commissioners).
DR. JERRY GEERNAERT, 3234 Del Mar Drive, Lafayette, Calif. I'm the owner of
this parcel of land. As has been stated, I purchased this land primarily as
future residence for myself and therefore am very concerned about maintaining;
the integrity of the area. Originally, this parcel was 6 acres and within the
past three years it has been divided twice, each time one acre divided off of
6070022 5
• 5 July iY78
the land. As a m-itrer of fact, the last within 2 years was divided off by a
member of the Plaruring Staff, the one acre. I don't think that we're asking
anything that's unreasonable.
i.r
As Mr. Young stated in an earlier application, this four acres of land is
_.o absolutely flat increasing slightly to the back tqo pieces of property where
planners are absolutely correct. They do have some problems with sewers. They
have plenty of water; but, they do have some leach problems. We already have
got acceptance through the Health Department for three for sure and one other
septic site already approved; so, septics are not a problem in the area.
I would submit that I am very concerned about the site and had I had the
opportunity to purchase just one lot and not have to go through all this
falderal to get a site for myself, I would have been glad to do it; but, the
previous owner could not sell unless she sold the whole thing so I was placed
in the situation of purchasing it all. But, I feel that anybody moving into
an area is entitled to all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of the
neighbors. Those people all around me are living on acre sized lot. There
are larger parcels around which are still undeveloped and as you can see the
white area coming down Pine Creek is zoned R-40 by the City of Walnut Creek
and is only about two blocks away and the sewer will be coming down that
street for that development and in a period of time is not that far away.
I would like to get on with my project; get my home developed; get my children
settled in this area and I request that you approve our application.
MR. FENICHEL: Mr. Chairman, the division referred to by a member of the
Planning Staff is a past member of the planning staff.
No one else appeared to speak in favor of this application.
MR. ROBERT SCHAR, 575 Pine Creek Road, Walnut Creek, California. I lives at the
end of the access road mentioned here two or three times tonight. I, too, agree
with the good doctor---it's a tremendous place to raise your children. That's
why we moved there and I believe it's naieve to think that undeveloped land
will not be developed. It has to be. It's our opinion that this was zoned A-2
due to the sewage and water problems and that it would be a fantastic place to
put a house on each side. In fact, we were kind of hoping that would take
place and maybe the purchaser would be willing to sell an acre to us to add o
our particular property to accommodate our horses---particularly that part that
has poor drainage since we're not concerned about drainage. We're concerned
about accessibility to the land.
So, if you do build your site doctor and are concerned about the remainder of
your land, perhaps we can get together. Thank you.
MR. WILLIAM M. AMBROSE, 611 Pine Creek Road, Walnut Creek, California. I live
adjacent to the subject property I'm not quite as effected as Mr. Schar is.
You've heard the same story many 'times. I'm sure none of us wants to see further
development and we did buy into an A-2 area because you can have horses, cows,
donkeys, chickens, ducks, etc.
It's my understanding that R-40 puts kind of a squelch on that sort of activity.
It would be my own suggestion that the staff reconfnendation of R-65 Zoning would
t be better for this area---two lots. I think that would be perfectl,.• logical for
development in this particular area. Dr. Geernaert, obviously would lir=e to
recover some of the high costs of the purchase of this land---I sure couldn't
buy in this area if I had to---and perhaps the good suggestionwo `i the
b
608
• 0 ,July IT/8
R-W,zrxninp, and 1w (-id 1 ::-]1. ,t IK)rl i,,n I:o aar't! r)f tltr? Lan, adjoining, l.tnrJ r .mr rr:
I"1111 ul wi+un+ 1 lu Lnuw wt,utrl l ii:(. h) incrust,, Ila, :;i7(- III Ihr•ir• poly , i::.
QI don't know ii the P-lanning, Comrnis:.ion is aware of scive of the problems in this
aroma. Dr. Geernaert tris actually purchased a lake on one side of the private
road. I feel that it is inconceivable and would have to disagree that there
could possibly be septic service on that land since the lake just disappeared
about three (3) weeks ago since we did have a lot of winter rain. I've lived
there for six years and just the past two years is the only time we haven't had
a lake there.
What I'm saying is that the services perhaps aren't as quite as available or
ready as might have been presented to Dr. Geernaert. I know it took me three
years and probably 300 holes punched into the property to get one septic approval
next door. That leads me to another half of the same presentation.
I represent the Castle Rock County Water District, which is a very smcrl:L �l.istri� t
which serves the only water into the area. We currently service 46 customers
and very, frankly, our Board of Directors meets only once a month and will meet
next Monday. Our big concern right now is that we simply cannot service large
developments. If you allow an R-40 zoning here in this land, the immediately
adjacent parcel is 5 acres, there is someone who has obtained an option on that
parcel subject to this rezoning. If this parcel is rezoned, then we would have
a minimum of 9 lots on that land.
Immediately adjacent to that parcel, there's a 15 acre parcel which I'm sure
you will hear about shortly after that. What we're talking about is the only
water in the area is our water and we can't service that kind of development.
We can service one home on two, three or f0LIr acres and probably we can accomm-
odate another 10 or 12 homes. After that, we're going to have to spend probably
$500,000 which is a lot of money for 46 customers to absorb in order to service
these new homes.
I'm not speaking for the fire department and they require a lot more water than
I see necessary; but, there are some serious prcblems for this area. As the
Manager of the water district, I have not been contacted by the applicant or
the owner of this land. Perhaps someone else in the district has; but, I don't
]mow about it if they have not contacted me about it.
I don't think they're aware of the problems. I would like to see the Planning
Commission accept the staff's recommending for R-65 Zoning. I think Mr. Boccius
is familiar with the area. He knows what kind of development is appropriate
for this area and I am in agreement with this recommendation. Thank you.
No one else appeared to speak in opposition.
MR. CALABRIGO re-appeared to speak in rebuttal. First of all with regard to
livestock which is appreciated in this area, I would just point to once excerpt
taken from the "very low density" designation of the general plan's land use
and circulation element of the area which says:
"Keeping livestock for pleasure is appropriate in these areas."
With regard to Dir. AIrbrose's association with the Castle Rock Water District, I
+ can assure the members of the Commission and Mr. Ambrose that if he was not con-
t tacted with regard to this proposal, it was not for lack of trying. I spent a
great deal of last week trying to contact a representative of his agency; but,
no one at the Countv Water District or any of the local water companies or the
planning or engineering department new where I could mach them.
609 0002,i-'r;
• ! `� duly .1'.171,
HOwrvrr,, I wnuld 1i!:c, In TriIori Io :%it�I: of whal I ,,nid rar-Iier. 'Ihe Castlr
hold. W.Ttcr I?.isti .i(A tI,)t�:;n'L enb_,v ill LO c.iLhc:r o1 Lha; I_-10 d1Lc1'n.1L1v(.s LhaL I
mentioned for this property.
Again, I would refs to the North Care Water Assessment District, which we are
looking into and the use of individual wells for this area since it has been
indicated to us that the Castle Rock Water District could not serve this pro-
perty even if we were to go to them and request a service extension. 'Thank
you.
DR. GEERNAERT re-appeared to speak in rebuttal. In reference to the existing
lake, it is true that this winter we had some water standing on part of the
property. In anticipating that it might become a problem, I measured it and
it was 14 feet wide and 21 vards long and the deepest point, it was 7-1/2 inches;
so, as a lake goes, it was not that big a problem and would probably take some
fill.
We have had 90 holes drilled on the property and we know exactly where 'the
leach fields are and fortunately, in that area, we have a subterranean river
bed that is ideal for the leach fields. The water level is high enough and
adequate to service any antount of water.
So, on this property, neither of the problems both the gentlemen have on their
land exist here.
I feel that I should be entitled to the rights and privileges that one's neigh-
bors have and each of them are sitting on property that is much less than 65,000
sq. ft., and was divided off on that basis and they are up the hill. Again, as
Mr. Young said, as you go up the hills you need for room for your houses and
40,000 sq. ft., is more than adequate for my home and I should think adequate
for anybody. I just don't see where there should be a problem. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: The hearing is closed and before the Commission for decision.
Are there any comments?
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, as I see it, there are only two problems or
two questions here. First, is R-40 suitable for this immediate area and then
secondly whether or not -the parcel can be divided as the applicant would like.
I must say as far as the zoning goes, I don't find anything wrong with R-40
zoning in this particular area. Generally speaking, we have reserved R-65
for properties which are fairly steep; properties which if they were level
would be zoned 40,000 sq. ft.
When it comes to the division of the property, the Zoning Administrator is going
to have to make some decisions and I can see that they're not going to be very
easy. The applicant is going to have to come up with some answers to the ques-
tions which have been raised. It could be that the parcel sizes will be varied;
maybe there will he one or two parcels of 40,000 sq. ft., and maybe the remainder
as it i.s---something of this kind. So, as, far as I'm concerned, the zoning for,
the property would be appropriate am.1 I'I1 not comitent further on the proposed
minor subdivision.
COMMISSIONER MILANO: From what I've heard, there seems to be a problem; but,
on the other hand there don't seem to be a problem. I would like to see the
property before I vote on this.
COMISSIONER PHILLIPS: I would agree with Mr. Milano.
CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Then our next field trip is Friday, July 14th; so we should
610 ®{�
• 5 drily 1978
be able to make a decision on July 18th.
Upall nh>t.ion of Miloiio, :w4xmxkv1 by t:cmaai.:::.irnus Ynunt,, it. w.r:; ua,� I
6" that the public hearing; on the rezoninc; application of DTAR1_,O r:NGINCERS, INC.
,,;, (Applicant), JERRY GEE2NAER,1' (Owner), (2253-hZ), be CLOSED; that the CoWssion
`_3 view the site and area on field trip Friday, July 14, 1978; that a decision be
rendered Tuesday, July 18, 1978.
A roll-call vote was taken; following is the Commission's recorded vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Milano, Young, Phillips, Stoddard,.
Anderson.
NOES: Conni.ssioners - None.
ABSENT: Conunissi.oncrs - W31ton, Comp,rl;l:ia.
ABS'PAIN: Conmiissioners - None.
Motion carried.
n
1
r
V 0 July 1978 - Study Session
i
G RI_%ONJ NU: lllail`I NC CLU1fl:'11: W..(:1.ti 1ON:
DIANLO hNGJN1•'1•:RS, INC. (Applicant) - .11-WRY GIil:12PIAP:IZ2' (Owner) - 2243-RZ
A request to rezone approx!Ilia tel y 4.04 acres From General Agricultural District
(A-2) to Single Family Residential District (R-40) , fronting 392-ft., on the
east side of Pine Creek Road, approx., 2,900-ft., southeast of Castle Rock Rd.,
Walnut Creek area. (C1'-3382)
PIR. BOCCIUS briefed the Commission on this application. As you will recall the
hearing on this, the applicant is requesting rezoning from A-2 to R-40 and there
is a minor subdivision application filed for four (4) lots, two of which would
be under the R-40 requirements and would need a variance approved. The minor
subdivision is pending this rezoning application. The cleneral plan would support
at least R-40 or higher. The properties surrounding this arc from 1/2 parcels
to one acre to much larger. There are many horse set-ups and agricultural pre-
serves to the east and Pit. Diablo located to the southeast.
The question here is one of services. The staff report points out the problem
of percolation tests in the area. The applicant made statements at the public
hearing indicating that he is willing to bring certain services in to the area
in the event the minor subdivision is approved.
Th,2 staff indicates that the constraint of the easement running through the
property serving the two parcels to the rear would best serve a two lot con-
figuration and, therefore, recommends R-65 zoning.
Residents of the area have written to you also recommending a two lot division.
r'
Again, staff recommends R-65 zoning; the applicant desires R-40 zoning. Any
questions?
No questions directed to Air. Boccius.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be voting for the applicant in
this case. It seems to me that there may be a problem when the property is divided
because if there are not services available, I'm sure that the Zoning Administrator
would not permit 40,000 sq. ft. lot. However, I'm sure that in the coming years,
there will be a great deal of pressure in the area to get down to a lower or
smaller sized lot than R-65. I think probably R-40 will become the usual sized
lot in the area and it seems to me it would be appropriate to go ahead with
this property and rezone it R-40 but not to divide it into 40,000 sq. ft. yet
but to make that possible when services are available.
COMMISSIONER COMPAGLIA: I think staff has a good point in that the area has
proved that the percolation tests have not been satisfactory. Ithink possibly
the R-65 zoning would be the correct zoning. If in the future we do get ser-
vices out there, then we can consider going to lower zoning.
COMMISSIONER WALTON: I would tend to agree with Air. Compaglia and disagree with
Mr. Young to this extent: I don't think that those lots are broken up that way
in the surrounding area at this particular time. Mr. Young suggested perhaps
it will do that in the future. It might and at that time, we could reconsider
as Mr. Compaglia suggested; but, I just hate to break new ground here and go
ahead and anticipate what might be broken up and---I don't want to break up
that area into acre lots. I don't want to start something here. I would be
for the R-65 Zoning.
COMMISSIONER MILANO: I was impressed by the staff's analysis on this application.
On our field trip, we saw this and it appeared to me that most of the surround-
0
663
n(s�`
i
'� • 18 July 1978 - Study Session
in!] propertier: rallgtn (rnm ono .u-'ro In /,iv(, ;rcrr :. I doll't Ch;rt thir: 1'1'r)lN.r1q
is ready for R-40 in that all the services are not readily available at this time.
1 r
COMMISSIONER WALTON: I would also add for the record that this item was on the
agenda meeting that I missed and I was provided a transcript and I have read it.
ra
COMMISSIONER COMPAGLIA: I too missed that meeting; but, I have seen the land
on field trip and I, too, read a copy of the transcipt of the hearing.
Upon motion of Commissioner Milano, seconded by Commissioner Stoddard, it was
moved that the Planning Staff be instructed to prepare findings recommending
to the Board of Supervisors that the rezoning application of DIABLO ENGINEERS
(Applicant), JERRY GEERNAERT (Owner), (2243-RL), be APPROVED for change from
A-2 to R-65 in lieu of the applicant's request for R-40.
-A roll-call was taken; following is the Commission's recorded vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Milano, Stoddard, Phillips, Compaglia,
Walton, Anderson.
NOES: Commissioners - Andrew H. Young.
ABSENT: Commissioners - None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None.
Motion carried.
�t
r j
c-
00022r
Y
�A.2 X _ __i A'2
Rezone t � ,F,; { ,'~
F—R
Prom'�� To
F T
IMP-
_ f /
'A2 , t j
4004'
i, P24AII-D-E. ANDE1 5MA Chairman of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission, State of California, do hereby certify
that this is a true and correct copy of MT. DiA3LC► Lat�lStC�hl;_
indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning
Commission in the matter of DIA8Lo &-N,G1NE>sRiNC, it,1C.
2243-RZ
Chairman of the Contra Costa County
r Planning Commission, State of Calif.
ATTEST:
-01011
i'Secretary of tl, Contra Costa'County l
Plcynnin� Com fission, Statcof Calif. Findings Map
LAW Oc-DICES
ARTtiUR M. SHELTON
• PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
P. O.BOX 4486
2815 MITCHELL DRIVE.SUITE 200
WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94596
14151 937-0110
January 22, 1979
Hon. Chairman and Members
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Subject: 2243-RZ (Dr. Geernaert)
The Applicant, Dr. Geernaert, respectfully requests
that the Board refer this matter back to the County
Planning Commission to reconsider its recommendation of
R-64rso that the Applicant may have either R-40 or a
Planned Unit development with 4 residences on this
4-acre parcel. The reasons for this request are as
follows:
1. The matter has not been fully heard by the
Commission.At its July 18, 1978 hearing, the Commission
recommended R-65 or 1-1/2 acre zoning because it was
thought that the property would not be connected to the
sewer system and would be served by septic tank. This
is not the case. All 4 lots requested will be connected
to a sewer main extended to the property. The same is
true of water. R-40 zoning to permit 4 lots may be made
conditional on these main extensions (26-2.26 County
ordinance Code) .
Applicant retained counsel who formally requested
a re-hearing by the Planning Commission which was granted.
However, when the re-hearing was scheduled, no notice of
the hearing date was mailed to Applicant or his counsel.
Since there was no appearance by the persons requesting
the re-hearing, the Commission did not change its recom-
mendation from R-65 to R-40.
2. Other development in the area is at densities
far higher than R-40. A general vicinity map is appended
(Exhibit A) . The attached aeriel photograph (Exhibit B)
shows the surrounding development with the subject property
outlined in red. It is near Northgate High School which
appears in the left center. The subdivisions northwest
000
LAW OFFICES
ARTHUR M. SHELTON
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
• Hon. Chairman and Members
Contra Costa Co. Board of Supervisors
January 22, 1979
Page 2
of the property are all built out to Walnut Creek's medium
density single family residence classification which pro-
vides a range from 2.5.to 4 dwelling units per acre. The
property is within the sphere of influence of Walnut Creek
whose General Plan allows up to a maximum of 2 dwelling
units per acre on the subject property (Exhibit C) . Other
property adjacent to the subject property has been
split off into 1-acre parcels.
3. R-65 would result in an uneconomic, wasteful
development. At R-65 the staff would permit only 2 dwelling
units to be constructed on this 4-acre parcel. This is flat
land. it is clearly in the path of future Northgate area
growth. It would he uneconomical to extend sewer and water
service to serve only 2 dwelling units. Land must be divided
into economically attractive parcels if the growth needs of
the community are to be realized.
We respectfully request that this matter be referred
back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.
Arthur M. Shelton
Attorney for Applicant
AMS/mjd1/8-9
•
7
cot.�y" �, ty �� ..,.'l,,._,�..• - I I ! i
� � I.G.Y[�l[ � �•"'(�` I/r.�\�,\4 `.,i r`S. 1 of L�r E.r=�j
MAS
_ .a _-
j
Mc woo
) H
1 . too V
� },•- ,�.1 i,.�;,��.`\.���'D i 'V .:
Y tl« .t t � L ]1 .401E COYttF
ze
•r .e�v+ :.ct,.r 'A
x0r
r C NO GATE FD r
P�i'f f•' - i' r Ci _
. �� ^' ,roof' yr j -.i 9V�`.�. t! � xe...•n.c`cof E"[ t
1_ b p�.S-45=DF u CT 1 16Pa
Ali
.AI9'
L
7 RaM 7XaM4t RR'74,,ep r /"raps - eoN� C,ov7, eb
MAP
SHIBIT A
1
i,. � `
sib . .
���
:��
r �,;• tt ;lr• C.• r.. �g�., '''Y•;'^ :••' r`^f•H"'- !.•. ..r�l --;.- -'----—_—
J ::t'tl,'•-•ti: V+. V, `� :'i\•.' I.. .,?.ice: .i_•.'i-fig -.:�l_ �•si�.-r _ `_— _ --._
�!i i v 4..'0�.�• � �l -Dt+ty�!...!":•;.,•'••
�• •.."•,. \;•]- J:l• .� .� •fit - -_ -
7 ^s'•
��•••l�,--�• -5 . �,. _ X2.5
. . �.� x .
��i.:��C ,.•-j•`"_FJ -3:{:.�:+;. .i•;rFT.. •..!i-.. '-.'1f '.[.� 1''. '�'•_-S. .�{f�.:�;.i•;':� �,t�,'=•;,:: :!':-::••rpt:.:::• ,--• -- - -- -_
/ �• r :.;.,+ '•.�- �r.3.�+ -'j:'.1:�'��`' w'it_•r..-�-�-•• __,,,mss.,, �'u?iLS:k'. I �c—'__- N '`t __—
QT` �' 1� r � ���T�:�..• —.l.l[..:�:r ,•r_ r .•'.•-.+:�.... •-1��•'i ,IF:-TD. 1. .' ..• :��•�•'•• -F _�\ � —..."
J1�''�� .�`.,�- .�, •-,�-�y,s�X �..-5fJ_�. �•L',A• ;. ,.=1 1 ,_•�-',yM.-�r .rth4 _+r•-.'-.�.:-i.•, ems-•:• _�• _
Y it 's-_v,'r= }�•',� !-i•Y#?�•:•-;•}', � '''* .Y_::'!i, �. '«F
r �.- .t•� •' �' '% } T .,J•'�'''`'?6 *•mac —:__'�����_ ----- --- --`_—._
'l t �', ;+}�:,;�, .��': r�::-t } r�4' t ;i �Tr.�:..� f .t��• .:,•:;•':M _—_"-- Ir i --
cho-� �1.r.�r ,SS :•'r.: 1!,('k!.:• a'' '"- .::_'�.;,4'::: -s...r - n s
r { t ';
��-•T ti- -Z;-: `.� '>Yrr _„.•yt-:.• x -_1.... "_�v.. r rC''�t:1,:, 1Ta�3:-.+-•••. �,
u
u _-®pan SF (0-1 C'U- --- -
li DIASL0
Open SQ-cam (0-2
p�zry
EXHIBIT t