HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01011981 - Morris Ranch IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF
CONTRA COSTA- COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of Hearing. on the )
Appeal of Morris Ranch Homeowners ' )
Association from San Ramon Valley ) June 30 , 1981
Area Planning Commission' Condi-
tional
Condi-tional Approval of Land Use Permit )
No. 2052-80, Danville Area. )
Pat Lenz and Mark Stott, : Owners )
The Board on June 9, 1981 having fixed this time for
hearing on the appeal of Morris Ranch Homeowners ' Association from
San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission conditional approval of
Land Use Permit No. 2052-80 to convert an old house to medical and
dental offices, Danville area ; and
Harvey Bragdon; Assistant Director of Planning, having
described the proposal ; and
Doug Offenhartz , applicant, having advised that they plan
to restore the house to landmark quality and having stated that
they have agreed to a landscaping plan which will effectively screen
the house from the adjoining residential neighborhood ; and
Alfred F . Schmid, 14 Adair Court, Danville, having stated
that the proposal is a commercial use and should not be permitted in
a residential neighborhood and having urged the Board to deny the
application; and
Jack D. Spencer, 10 Adair Court, Danville 94526, having
expressed .opposition to the placement of the two-story house behind
his backyard and having expressed concern for the possibility of
loitering in the unattended parking lot at night and on weekends and
additional cars parked along San Ramon Valley .Boulevard because of
the lack of parking spaces proposed for the development ; and
Stan Nielson, 19 Adair Court, Danville 94526, having
expressed concern for the height and condition of the house; and
Mr. Offenhartz; in rebuttal, having advised that they plan
to install a fence to close off access to the parking lot and having
stated that the proposalis not a commercial development and in his
opinion is an appropriate transition between residential and office
developments ; and
Supervisor T. Torlakson having recommended that the appeal
of Morris Ranch Homeowners ' Association be denied and that the
decision of the San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission be upheld ;
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendation of
Supervisor Torlakson is APPROVED.
PASSED by the following vote of the Board on June 30 , 1981:
AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson,
Powers .
NOES: None. l
CERTIFIED COPY
ABSENT• None. I certify that this is a full. true 8, correct cony of
the original doctrtn^nt i..hirh '; (.n fiin In my office.
and that it �: the Board of
Snper� w': oC fo;pia. a•
cc: Morris Ranch Homeowners ' <u:� >;,:� :,,. :,; , : : r. :.. (,i,:;:•ii count.:.
(,i.rk & e3-o (ic�.o Ulerk of said Board of Supervisors
Association i,� Deputy c;it1l�. --
Pat Lenz & Mark Stott JUN 3 01981
Director of Planning �--..--- .................... on ...........................
b. C�enrlc��.zr qc.^����m�hl
i
CITIZEN COMMENTS
(Please leave in the box near the speaker's rostrum)
Your full name: Phone:
��-� �9 7C/
Your address:
Organization or firm you represent, if any:
i
Date:
CHECK ONE:
i
❑ I wish to speak on this subject or item number:
i
i
I do not wish to .speak but would like to leav these com ents for the Board:
4 AL O '
Off.
�� • � -, C=-�S��-vim.�3�—�-4�� � c�Q-- �`►—�
CITIZEN COMMENTS i
(Please leave inIthe box near the speaker's rostrum)
� � p
Your full name: �� G�q ,pGe,�� Phone:
i
Your address: C7 \N
Organization or firm you represent, if any: S
i
Date: 3 d I`�'I
CHECK ONE:
❑ I wish to speak on this sub/j�ect or item number: Q
I do not wish to speak buit would like to leave these comments for the Board:
I
i
• !CITIZEN COMMENTS
(Please leave in the box near the speaker's rostrum)
Your full name: Phone: S13�— /FSF
Your address: S99 ® f-Ga.GC_ 4 o a e-
Organization or firm you represent, if any:
Date:
CHECK ONE:
i
[]wish to speak on this subject or item number:
Q
I do not wish to speak bu't would like to leave these comments for the Board:
0 CITIZEN COMMENTS
(Please leave in the box near the speaker's rostrum)
Your full name:/&-S ��CK/C (fAlMy Phone: ?ZG - 4a,5 J-"
Your address: /� �T]� %/� OT
Organization or firm you represent, if any:
Date:
CHECK ONE:
i
[] I wish to speak on this subject or item number:
�] I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board:
12 Xtj- lop
•
;CITIZEN COMMENTS
(Please leave in the box near the speaker's rostrum)
Your full name: �� /�� ,� j� GPhone: cFOO
Your address: a d pili'm &,T-
Organization or firm you represent, if any:
Date:
CHECK ONE:
I
eKwi sh to speak on this subject or item number: 4,0- (4(Y G p tqI2 M 1)"
i
I
Q I do not wish to speak bu,t would like to leave these comments for the Board:
• 'CITIZEN COMMENTS
(Please leave in the box near the speaker's rostrum)
Your full name: d/�1�� f�/`J� Phone: P7 3347
Your address:
Organization or firm u reps sent, if an
Date: 6 3d
CHECK ONE:
[] I wish to speak on this slubject or item number:
CFO
I
Q I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board:
i
• ;CITIZEN COMMENTS
(Please leave in the box near the speaker's rostrum)
yL ,
Your full name: �G �� nZ- Phone:
Your address:_ IQ/4
Organization or .firm you represent, if any:
I
I
Date: D
CHECK ONE:
(�I wish to speak on this subject or item number:
�I
i
[] I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board:
I
I L
.ilaa 1981
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS , COdTRA COSTA COUNTY
CALIFORNIA J. R. OLSSON
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
C T COSTA CO.
By.•........ .................De u
Re : Appeal of Morris Ranch )
Homeowners ' Association from )
San Ramon Valley Area Planning; ) CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
Commission Conditional Approval )
of Land Use Permit No. 2052-80, )
Danville Area. (Pat Lenz and )
Mark Stott, Owners) i )
I certify that !I am now, and at all times hereinafter
mentioned have been, a citizen of the United States and not a
party to the above-entitled matter and not interested therein
i
nor in the event thereof;; and that on _ Jupe /q /98/ ,
I posted a full , true and correct copy of NOT1c65 at
the following locations : )
i
(1) Stapled to a utility pole Westerly side of Podva Road, approxi-
mately 200 (two-hundred) feet South of Podva Road/San Ramon
Valley Boulevard intersection near Southeasterly corner of sub-
ject property.
(2) Stapled to a stake, Westerly side of Podva Road, approximately
50 (-fifty) feet North; of first notice, Northeasterly corner of
subject property.
i
' I
I
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct .
Dated : U,-10 at "Martinez , California.
i
i
RUSSELL T. FERMANDEZ�eotty Clerk
Election Precincts Coordinator
PROOF OF PUBLICA10N
This spacer County Clerk's Filing Stamp
(2015,5 C.C.P.) ------
L E D
JUNZQ981
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Contra Costa Ellie BORRD of;SUP t ,R5j
.:co TaA A c
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid; I 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 a Public Hearing
I am the Principal legal Clerk of the Valley Pioneer. A
newspaper of general circulation, published at 322 So. -- PC-88131 VP-1147
Hartz Ave., Danville, Ca., Count of Contra Costa NOTICE OF
County PUBLIC HEARING
94526. BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
i ON A PLANNING MATTER
Danville AREA
And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper NOTICE is hereby given
that on Tuesday, June 30,
of general circulation by the Superior Court of the Coun- 1981, at 2:30 p.m. in Room
- 107.of the County Adminis-
tration Building, corner of
ty of Contra Costa,State of California,under the date of Pine and Escobar Streets,
I Martinez, California, the
May 1, 1947. Case Number 3946$. j Contra Costa County Board
of Supervisors will hold a
public hearing to consider
the following planning mat-
The notice,of which the annexed is a printed copy(set in ter
Appeal of Morris Ranchl
Homeowners' Association
type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in from San Ramon Valley Area
Planning Commission condi-
each regular and entire issue of said news a er and not tional approval of applica-
P P tion for Land Use Permit No.
2052-80.
in any supplement thereof on the following dates,to-Wit: The location of the subject
landis within the unincor-
porated territory of the
County of Contra Costa,
June 17 State of California,generally
identified as follows(a more
precise description may be
examined in the office of Di-
all in the year of 19 $l. rector of Planning, County
Administration Building,
Martinez,California):
certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the An 0.45 acre descriptive
lparcel fronting approximate-
foregoing is true and correct. ly 75 feet on the west side of
Podva Road approximately
200 feet south of the inter-
Executed at Danville, California. section of Podva Road and
San Ramon Valley Boule-.
I, vard,in the Danville area.
On this_ thday of June _ 1j9 $1 By order of the Board of!
—" Supervisors of the County of
Contra Costa, State of Cali-
. t I fornia. - -
Date:June 9, 1981 f{
-- J.R.OLSSON, i
Signature County Clerk.and,
ex officio
Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors of the
County of Contra Costa,
State of California ' apers, Inc.
By Diana M.Herman,
PROOF OF PUBLICATION PO-8Det
8131 Clerk
Legal VP 1147 55261
Publish June 17, 1981 iii{
r
i
In the Board of Supervisors
Of
Contra Costa County, State of California
June 9 , 19 -al
In the Matter of
Appeal of Morris Ranch Homeowners '
Association from San Ramon Valley Area
Planning Commission Conditiondl Approval
of Land Use Permit No. 2052-80,
Danville Area. (Pat Lenz and Mark Stott,
Owners)
WHEREAS on the 20th day of May, 1981 the San Ramon
Valley Area Planning Commission approved with conditions the application
of Doug Offenhartz for Land Use Permit No. 2052-80, Danville area; and
WHEREAS within the time allowed by law Fred Schmid and
Dr. Jack Spencer of Morris Ranch Homeowners ' Association,��fled
with this Board an appeal from said conditional approval-;-
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that a hearing be held on
said appeal before this Boa.rdjin its Chambers, Room 107, County
Administration Building, Pine ;and Escobar Streets, Martinez, California,
on Tuesday, June 30, 1981 at 2:30 p.m. and the Clerk is DIRECTED to publish
and post notice of hearing, pursuant to code requirements.
PASSED on June 9, 1981 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak,
Torlakson, Powers.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
i
I
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: Morris Ranch Homeowners ' iAssoc. Supervisors
Pat Lenz & Mark Stott affixed this 9th day of June 19 81
List of Names Provided by
Planning
Director of Planning J. R. OLSSON, Clerk
By _ Deputy Clerk
Diana M. Herman
H-24 3/79 15M
James
Oleso
The Board of Supervise Contra County Jerk an
County Clerk and
Costa
Ex Officio Clerk o1 the Boa+e
'County Administration Building (t/o Mrs.Geraldine Russell
Chief Clerk
P.O. Box 911 County
Ount / (415)372-2371
Martinez, California 94553 � ���/
Tom Powers. 1st District
Nancy C.Fanden,2nd District
Robert 1.Schroder,3rd District
Sunne Wright McPeak,4th District
Eric H.Has iettine,5th District
June 9, 1981
THE VALLEY PIONEER
P. 0. Box 68
Danville, CA 94526
Gentlemen :
Re : Purchase Order # 88131
Enclosed isAW 1 document(s) which we wish you to
publish on June 17, 11981
Notice of hearing ion appeal of Morris Ranch Homeowners '
Association from conditional approval of LUP 2052-80,
I
Danville area.
Upon receipt , please sign the enclosed card and return it
to this office .
IM..N'EDIATELY upon the expiration of publication, send us an
affidavit for each publication in order that the Auditor may be
authorized to pay your bill .
Very truly yours ,
J . R. OLSSON, Clerk
By c�
Diana M. Herman
Deputy Clerk
Enclosure�01/
15. 4 (Rev. 10/79)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA ;COUNTY .BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON A PLANNING MATTER
Danvi 11 e AREA
NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday
June 30, 1981 , at 2:30 .m. in Room 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:
Appeal of Morris Ranch Homeowners' Association from San Ramon
Valley Area Planning Commission conditional approval of
application for Land Use Permit No. 2052-80.
The location of the subject land is within the
unincorporated territoryof the County of Contra Costa, State of
California, generally identified as follows (a more precise
description may be examiried in the office of Director of Planning,
County Administration Building, Martinez, California) :
An 0.45 acre descriptive parcel fronting approximately 75 feet
on the west side of Podva Road approximately 200 feet south of
the intersection of Podva Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard,
in the Danville area.
By order of the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Contra Costa, State of California.
Date : June 9, 1981
J. R. OLSSON, County Clerk and
ex officio Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors of the County of
Contra Costa, State of California
By
Deputy Clerk
Diana M. Herman,
I
I
CONTRA COS 'A COUNTY
CLERK'S OFFICE
Inter - 0M Memo
Date: June 9, 1981
To: . Lon Under-wood, Eiec tions
From: Clerk of the Boated
By Diana M. Herman, .Deputy Clerk ./i
Subject:. Posting Notices of Hearing
I •
Please post the attached notices of Hearing in at least
t:ao conspicuous places close to the subject property-, preferably
on public high;•;ays at a distance of fronn fifty to one hundred Leet
in at: least two directions from the subject property (Ordinance
later than •
Code erection, 25-2.200 _); no June••1.9-, 1981 • • - • - - - •
Pleas;2 cormple-''�e the attached certifi carr of posting and
return it to the Clerk I of the Board .prior to June 24-,• 1981 '
Attachments
i
i
i
{q g�
� RECEIVED
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT JUN i t
I
J. R. OLSSON
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T
C .
BX----........ON.T11 O TA....-.. Deputy
TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: June 3, 1981
Attn: Clerk of the�Boa rd
FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesu SUBJECT: APPEAL: LUP #2052-80
Director of Planni , f. Doug Offenhartz (Applicant)
Danville area
APPLICANT: Ddug f lenhartz
OWNERS: P Lenz and Mark Stott
APPELLANT: Fred Schmid, Dr. Jack Spencer, Morris Ranch Homeowners'
Association
REQUEST: Medica11office building for 3 doctors, with variance to
structure height (36' ) and sideyard (0' ) .
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: A 0.45 acre descriptive parcel fronting approximately
75 feetlon the west side of Podva Road approximately 200
feet south of the intersection of Podva Road and San Ramon
Valley Boulevard, in the Danville area.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: Januaryl21 , 1981 San Ramon Valley Area Planning
Commission; hearing continued.
May 20, 1981 San Ramon Valley Area Planning
Commission.
DECISION: Approved with conditions.
APPEAL FILED: May 26,11981 .
I '
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following people should be notified of your Board's hearing date and time:
V
Doug Offenhartz (Applicant) Dr. Jack Spencer
P.O. Box 887 10 Adair Court
Danville, CA 94526 Danville, CA 94526
Pat Lenz & Mark Stott (Owners) Dan Verona
c/o P.O. Box 887 25 Adair Court
Danville, CA 94526 Danville, CA 94526
Fred Schmid Stan A. Nielsen
14 Adair Court 18 Adair Court
Danville, CA 94526 Danville, CA 94526
AAD:krt ell,
Attachments: Letter of Appeal ,) Staff Report, Minutes, Negative Declaration
cc: File #2052-80
Supervisors, Districts: I, II , III , IV, V
I
14 Adan Ct .
Danvil CA 94526
�Q, M,I I',iay 25, 1981
i
Contra Costa CountyZIC
Board of Supervisors o
651 Pine St.
I'+'Iartinez, CA 94553za
�
� r
o o
Ladies and Gentlemen :
U
C F -
We are appealing they decision on May 20, 1981, byre ►
Ramon Valley Planning Commission on the land use permit.�pp d
for by Doul; Offenhartz, Pat Lenz, and Mark Stott : County
File #2052-80.
By the approval of this permit, our property rights and j
residential property value will be adversely affected.
f
The issues of concern are ;
F
to Commercial abutting residential. Even though this
development is purported to be the salvation of an
old building, it is still a commercial endeavor.
2. The San Ramon Valley Planning Commission had earlier
committed unanimously to not allow commercial develop- . ..
ment on this property adjacent to' our horries.
3. The old house, which is to be turned into medical
offices, was moved illegally. The house was moved to
its present location abutting I+;orris Ranch without
proper permits.
4. This area has been designated a special concern area. x
The transition from commercial to residential was to
take a phased-in' approach. This action completely elim-
inates any possibility for that type of planning. f
5 . This structure,las presented for restoration, is in vio-
lation of -the height limit, which will invade our privacy. t'
G
6. The relocation site is one of expeditious nature and not
the result of good. planning. There are numerous sites
with proper zoning available in Danville that have nei-
ther been sought out or considered by the developer.
We wish to present our appeal at the earliest- opportunity. �
Since y,
_
1(1 `- �.'C f
red Schmid
=� ? Dr. Jack Spencer
Morris Ranch Homeowners ' Assn.
I
i
i
Planning Department Contra Costa County
SAN RAMON VALLEY AREA PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, May 20,1981
DOUG OFFENHARTZ (Applicant) PAT LENZ & MARK STOTT (Owners) (2052=80):
I. INTRODUCTION:
This is a request to establish a medical office for three doctors in a structure. with
variances to height and sideyard. Subject site fronts 75' on the west side of Podva Road
approximately 200' south of its intersection with San Ramon Valley Boulevard in the
Danville area.
II. COMMISSION DIRECTION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
At the March 4, 1981 San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission meeting the
cornmission directed (.1) the applicant to investigate the possibility .of working with the
Livery project to integrate in some way the two developments, and (2) staff to re-
evaluate any revised submittals and to suggest possible conditions of approval.
-The applicant submitted a revised plan on Wednesday March 18, 1981. The plan provides .
for some rearrangement of elements to facilitate additional buffering to the adjoining
single family residents, however the applicant does not appear to have been able to
arrange any physical integration of the project with the Livery project immediately north..
Additional landscaping has been provided on the south property line . increasing some .
landscaping to a width of 29' and providing 131 between the property line and four compact
parking spaces. The applicant has been unable .to provide the 40' buffer proposed as a
mitigation measure of the Specific Pllan.EIR.
The staff recommendation for deni 1 of this project, however has been based specifically
on the question of use and not necessarily on site design. The staff recommendation
remains the same for the sarne reasons previously discussed in the following report,
however, as directed by the Commission, possible conditions of approval and alternatives .
for design are attached.
III. GENERAL INFORMATION:
i
A. General Plan: Single Family Residential - Low Density (Sycamore Valley Specific
Plan - 1979 .
The 1977 San Ramon Valley A Iea General Plan designated the subject site together
with the property to the north as a specific concern area. The Plan states that the
"purpose of this designation isl to ensure that detailed studies. are initiated which
provide for a coordinated design of these properties and the plan (would) have to be
amended to designate appropriate land use categories before individual projects
i
I
4
2052-80 pg. 2
(could) be approved. Subsequently the sycamore Valley Specific Plan was adopted in '
1979 to cover the specific concern area. The land use category applied to the subject
site is Single Family Residentiall- Low Density.
B. Zoning: General Agriculture (A I2).
C. CEQA Status: On September 23, 1980 required public hearing notices were sent out
advising of the scheduled October 8, 1980 meeting. At that time no environmental
determination was made. The applicant requested the hearing on the matter be
postponed to allow sufficient time for additional submittals which could allow for the
completion of the environmental work by staff. Subsequently staff proposed a
conditional (or mitigated) negative declaration and sent out notices to interested
groups of the intent to prepare isuch a declaration. The mitigations .agreed to by the
applicant are as follows:
1. Install the landscaping as submitted to the Planning Department on plans dated
11/17/80. This would be a minimum landscaping provided and the exact size and
location of plant material would be clearly established 'to provide .within a
reasonable length of time the visual screen implied by the plan:
2. Preserve all on-site substantial trees indicated on the plan including palms.
3. Perform intersection modifications at Podva Road/San Ramon Valley Boulevard,
previously imposed as conditions of development on projects to the north if they
are not first constructed or adequately guaranteed by others.
4. Widen to 24' and relocate southerly the access drive.
D. Related Actions: Danville Livery (2120-RZ and 3007-77) approved adjacent to the
north. EIR prepared in conjunction with 1979 Specific Plan adoption. The EIR
prepared on the specific plan addressed the compatibility of the various uses proposed
to the adjacent residential communities. A. mitigation proposed in the EIR was to
install a residentially designed I6' high fence and a tree planting buffer. During the
public hearing process and in the responses to comments on the EIR it was.
specifically stated that a 40' minimum setback between the proposed office area and
the adjoining residential area to the south, including a landscaped buffer, would
provide the transition necessary. Again during the hearings on the Danville"Livery
commercial project to the north adequate buffering was addressed. In conformance
with the EIR and specific plan the approved project contains a 40' landscaped buffer.
E. Site Description and Existingand Use: .45 acre parcel rectangular in shape .(75' x
260' ; level site with existing (residential and proposed office structure located on
blocks. Several trees, shrubs and ornamental landscaping.
F. Surrounding Area: Adjacent residential to the south. Proposed residential to the
west; proposed office and commercial to the north with 40' landscape buffer proposed .
abutting the site.
G. Proposed Land Use: Three doctor medical office and 15 car parking area.
I
i
2052-80 pg. 3
H. Variances Requested: 37' high building (35' maximum allowed); 3' sideyard (20'
required).
I. Regulatory Programs: Within Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone and CNEL 60 dBA
noise contour.
IV. STAFF CONSIDERATIONS:
A. Nature of Request: The applicant proposes using the "old Podva House" relocated
onto the subject site for a medical office for three doctors. The existing residence
on the subject site is to be removed upon completion of the remodeling of the Podva
House. It is the applicant's intent to restore the Podva house as closely as possible to
the original so as to facilitate an application for .placement on the National Registry.
In addition to the architectural restoration, it is proposed that the landscaping be
done in a traditional victorian garden design. This will include a 3' high white picket
fence, hedges,.flower gardens, lawn areas with a croquet ground, pathways, benches
and statuary. The total building coverage proposed is 8%; parking area is 3.1%; and
landscaped area is 61%.
B. Health Department: Sewage disposal by Central Contra Costa Sanitary District.
Water by EBMUD.
C. San.Ramon Valley Fire Protection District: Comments submitted relate to construe-
tion requirements and should be' incorporated into conditions in the event the project
is approved.
D. Public Works Department: Comments attached.
E. Morris Ranch Homeowner's Association: August 1980 staff received communication
regarding concern and opposition to the proposed use and the relocation of the "old
Podva" house onto the subject'site. The question of the height of the building was
also raised.
F. Danville Assocation: Approved Ithe request as submitted.
G. .Traffic Report Summary: During the environmental review the applicant was
required to have a traffic study prepared addressing the anticipated traffic impacts
and proposed access for the subject site. The report discussed alternative land uses.
including (1) medical/dental office; (2) general office; (3) residential; and (4) nursery
school. The study found that a 3,000 square foot medical/dental office would
generate more than twice the amount of traffic than a general office use of the same
size. The nursery school use traffic was not specifically determined howeverif over
33 children were in attendance it would generate the most daily traffic. The
residential use would generate, by far, the least amount of traffic. The report also
discussed traffic distribution and an overall traffic analysis. In .conclusion the report
summarized mitigation measures to be considered as follow, and indicates that the
proposed project percentage of the anticipated 1990 San Ramon Valley Boulevard
peak-hour volume is so small it is insignificant regardless of which project land use is
considered.
i
i
i
2052-80 pg. 4
1. Select one of the lowest traffic generating land uses. 1
2. If a nursery school is selected, have its starting and stopping-hours restricted.so
as to not conflict with peaki hour street traffic peak hours.
3. Remove two palm trees and move the project driveway as far to the southwest
as possible.
4. Restrict outbound vehicles from the project to right turns only, even through this
adds travel distance to most existing vehicles. (Note that this restriction can be
enacted at any time in the future if a problem is created by any of the.project
land uses). To make this restriction positive, it will probably be necessary to
construct a narrow raised median island in Podva Road from San Ramon Valley
Boulevard southwesterly past the project driveway:
5. Have no project unless another access route is developed.
V. STAFF ANALYSIS:
A. Appopriateness of Use on Site: The specific plan, the associated EIR and the actions
of the San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission on accepting and approving those
documents, together with their action on the approval and the Danville Livery project j
tothe north clearly indicate that the 40' landscape buffer required is to be a
defineable limit to the commercial and office uses. The buffer is to provide a .
transition to residential uses. The site was specifically intended to be residential. in
use. To allow a non-residential use would be inappropriate and inconsistent with the
previous actions of the Planning Commission in the immediate area.
B. Site Plan Analysis: The site plan locates the building as northerly as possible and
provides in excess of 40' to the southerly property line. That area is to be landscaped
including the use of an evergreen glossy privit hedge planting intended to reach. a
maximum height of 20' to 30' along the southerly property line. Adequate parking is
provided.
C. Proposed Mitigation: A potentially acceptable alternative to the recommended
denial could be to consider a re-evaluation of the specific plan as it relates to the
subject site. A 40' landscape buffer required by the "Livery" could be relocated to
the south on the subject site and the proposed office project oriented to and .provide
access through the."Livery" project. This would provide the level of protection to the
existing neighboring residents established by previous action and would mitigate all
traffic concerns by integrating parking and circulation into that project.
VI. CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY:
1. Specific land use and site planning concerns were acknowledged in the 1977 San
Ramon Valley Area General Plan by establishing the specific concern area.
2. The 1979 Sycamore Valley Specific Plan intended single family residential use on the
subject site. i
2052-80 pg. 5
3. The EIR certified for the Specific Plan and Danville .Livery projects specifically
called for a 40' landscape buffer for transition from residential to non-residential
uses on the project to the north as a mitigation measure.
4. The approved Danville Livery project was designed and approved to provide a clear
definition.of the southerly limits of the non-residential uses.
5. The amount of traffic generated would not be a significant amount however general
office uses would generate less than one half the traffic as would a medical office.
6. A mitigation suggested by the (traffic report was to select a low traffic generating
use (Note:. no other office uses are allowed by the land use permit process). i
7. Approval of this project would be inconsistent with the Planning Commission's
previous actions on the site andabutting properties.
8. The Specific Plan could be le-evaluated to consider other than single family
residential uses and the site incorporated into the overall plan of the project to the
north.
i
VII. ALTERNATIVES AND POSSIBLE CONDITIONS:
A. Should the Planning Commissiondecide to approve the project as submitted the
following conditions should be considered:
(1) Development shall be as shown on the revised plans submitted, dated by the.Planning
Department March 18, 1981, subject to final review and approval by the County
Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit and subject to the
conditions listed below.
(2) One identification sign at the entrance is permitted with this permit. The sign shall
be of material and design to complement building design. All signs are subject to
review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to installation. Individual
tenant's identification sign program shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Zoning Administrator prior to installation.
(3) Comply with the landscape and 'irrigation requirements as follows:
A. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a landscape and irrigation :plan shall be
submitted for review and approval by the County Zoning Administrator. A cost
estimate or copy of contract for landscaping improvements .shall be submitted
with the plan. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to occupancy.
1) A coordination between the existing landscaping to be preserved and
landscaping to be planted.
B. The landscaping plan shall be prepared by a .qualified landscape architect.
2052-80 pg. 6
C. Significant landscaping to be preserved shall be subject to at least the following
preservation method:
1) Original grade shall not be changed.
2) Decomposed granite or other suitable porous material shall cover ground
withindrip .line. Where this is not possible in parking areas, 3.,foot deep,
gravel-filled cylindrical holes shall be provided no less than 4 inches apart .
around the drip line.
D. All landscaped areas must be maintained in good condition at all times.
(4) Exterior lights shall be deflected so that lights shine onto applicant's property and not
toward adjacent properties. All lighting standards shall be subject to final review and
approval fo the County Zoning Administrator and shall be residential in character. .
(5) Parking variances are approvedltoallow vehicle overhang into landscaped areas and
to have a maximum of 20% compact size parking spaces.
Off-street parking areas shall be surfaced with an asphatic or Portland cement binder
pavement, or similar material, Iso as to provide a durable and dustless surface and
shall be so graded and drained as to prevent the ponding of water.
(6) A variance is granted to have I maximum building height of 36 feet and minimum
sideyard of 3 feet.
(7) Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit complete building
plans. for final review and approval by the Zoning Administrator as to exterior
materials, color, design, etc.
(8) Comply with the requirements :of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District as
follows: (attached).
(9) Comply with the requirements off the Building Inspection Department.
(10) Comply with the requirements of the Public Works Department as follows:
(attached). !
B. Alternative and additional conditions which could be considered are following. Staff
studies depicting the alternatives are attached.
1. The site is 75 feet wide with parking along the north property line (19 feet min.) and
adequate back-up (28 feet min.). The maximum the southerly landscape area could be
is 28 feet. If a parking overhang easement (2 feet) could be obtained from the Livery
and 2 feet back-up variance granted the maximum the landscaped area could be is 32
f eet.
i
i
2052-80 pg. 7
Conditions that could be considered to implement this alternative include:
A. The applicant should be required to secure a 2 foot easement from the adjacent
property to the north for vehicle overhang only. This condition may be waived if
the applicant submits adequate documentation that he has .negotiated unsuccess-
fullyin good faith to secure such an easement.
B. A variance is granted to have a maximum 2 foot vehicle overhang into the
landscaped area. Concrete curbing shall be used as a wheel stop and the 2 feet
of landscaping shall be designed to accommodate such an overhang.
C. A variance is granted to have a 26 foot back-up area.
2. The four parking spaces shown along the south property line could be relocated to the
north side allowing for a 28 to 32 foot landscape buffer the entire .length of the south
property line.
Conditions that could be considered to implement this alternative include:
A., B., and C. above and
D. The applicant shall amend the site plan showing approximately 15 parking spaces
along the north property line and a full landscape buffer along the south property
line.
3. The applicant could consider locating the office structure closer to Podva Road with
parking in the rear which could create a more residential appearing site.
Condition to be considered to implement this alternative:
E. The applicant shall submit 'a revised si to plan which provides for all parking along
the north property line west of the office structure.
4. The size of the structure and/or, required parking could be reduced.
Conditions that could be considered to implement this alternative include:
.F. The applicant should submit a revised plan deleting the approximately 1,000
square foot addition.
G. This approval is granted for a maximum of two doctors. The site plan shall be
amended to provide for 10 parking spaces along the north property line.
H. A variance is granted to f lave 12 parking spaces for three doctors based on one
space for each 250 gross square feet consistent with code requirements for retail
uses. (Staff note: This is not a recommended variance because of the normal
traffic generated by medical offices).
5. If the Planning Commission finds that some use other than single family residential
may be appropriate on the subjiect site, but do not find the subject use consistent or
i
2052-80 pg. 8
i
compatible with the Specific Plan and General Plan, this project could be denied and
staff directed to consider a General Plan amendment study to review alternative land
uses.
6. The following conditions of approval have been submitted by or recommended by the
applicant after discussion with staff in an effort to mitigate some concerns raised by
the neighboring residents.
1. Planting of the landscape screening shall begin within 30 days of the effective
date of this permit. Failure to do so shall render this permit void.
J. Within 90 days of the effective date of this permit the applicant shall have
initiated a building permit request.
K. The applicant shall within one year from the effective date of approval initiate a
request to have the subject;structure listed as a registered historical building.
L. The.building elevations including a.shingle roof shall be as per plans submitted by
the applicant.
M. The upstairs south-facing windows shall be treated in such a manner so as to
protect the privacy of adjoining residential properties.
N. Along the south property line shall be a 2 foot high retaining'wall with mounding
to 3 feet overall height. A residentially designed 4 foot high solid wood fence
shall be placed on top of the 2 foot retaining wall.
D C:plp9lup
1/14/81
3/30/81
3/30/81
- i
011.1BLIC WORLS U 11PARTMENT l'
'``CON, ''FRA COSTA COUNTY
Qct 1 3 UI P�1 ' �
Datteoctober 2, 1930
To: A. A. Dehaesus, Director ;of Planning
Attention: Harvey Bragdon,.Assistant Director, Current Planning. `•
C
From: J. Michael Wal[ord, Acting Public Works Director
By: William R. Gray, /Assistant Public Works Director, Land Development
Subject: Perrnit 2052-80 Applicant: Offenhartz
Assessor's Parcel No. 208-462-013 Road No. 4727A, Podva Rd.
We have reviewed the application for Permit 2.052-80, which was received by your
office on July 9, 1980, and submit' the following comments:
The property involved in Permit 2052-80 fronts for 75 feet on Podva Road, a County
street, in the Danville area.
The ultirnate 60 foot right of :way has .been dedicated for flodva Road. As a
condition of approval of DF' 2.083'-79 (Danville Livery) that developer was obligated i
to construct frontage improvennents along the frontage of th'is parcel. The
improvement plans for another cleveloprnent to the north, show modification of the
Podva Road/San Ramon Valley Illoulevard intersection .to a. perpendicular. inter-
section. The developer of Permit 2052-80 should be required to perform similar
intersection modifications if they have not previously been constructed or
adequately guaranteed.
Because of this site's proximity to San Ramon Valley Boulevard,and the intersection
with Podva Road, traffic entering and exiting the site may Cause traffic conflicts !
and impede the flow of tr:.affic. oia San Ramon Valley Boulevard. To help minimize
the traffic conflicts the 20 foot wide driveway access should be widened to at least
24 feet wide to allow a wider turning radius into the property and the driveway
should be moved close to the southerly property .line. A revised plan showing the
driveway closer to the southerly property line than originally proposed was
submitted to this office on September 19, 1980, and is acceptable.
The applicant should be aware that Section 82-2.014 of the Ordinance Code states
that all permits issued pursuant to Title 8 are required to conform to Division 914 of !
the Ordinance Code. This will ret vire collecting and conveying (without diversion of
the watershed) all storm waters which originate on or enter the subject property of
the nearest adequate rnanrnade drainage facility. The nearest drainage facility is an
inlet on the frontage of this property. The drainage facility should be checked for
adequacy.
Based on the above, please include the attached. recornmended conditions for the
approval of Permit 2052-80.
r
Any questions regarding this rnerno may be directed to Steve Wright of this office at
372-4193.
SJWcc
2052-8082280
cc D. Of.fenhartz, P. Lenz &;M. Stott
PUBLIC;WORKS DEPARTMENT
�j ;tit, f-'!it1 1
DATE : December 26, 1980
T0 : A. A. Dehaesus, Director of Planning
Attention: Harvey Bragdon, Assistant Director, Current Planning
FROM :
J. Michael Walford, Acting Public Works Director�,�2�.:--�
By: William R. Gray,'Assistant Public Works Director, Land Developm t
SUBJECT : Permit 2052-80 Applicant: Offenhartz
i
i
I ,
The following comments are a supplement to our original memo of October 2, 1980,.
regarding; this application.. The coinrnents contained in our original memo are still
applicable. The applicant has s0brnitted a revised site plan showing the correct
location of the site in relation :to Podva Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard
intersection. Tile original site plan incorrectly showed the proposed development
fronting and accessing directly onto San Ramon Valley Boulevard. The revised site
plan correctly shows the driveway accessing onto Podva Road. We had indicated to
the applicant our concern with the close proximity of the proposed driveway to the i
Podva Road/San Ramon Valley 13ciulevard intersection. The driveway is less than 30 ;,...
feet from this intersection. Traffic entering; and exiting this driveway would add to
the congestion at this intersection. Vehicles exiting the proposed development onto
:San Ramon Valley 13oulcvar-d rnay'jind it difficult to make this manuever during peak
hour traffic. A motorist wishing io make this type of turning movement may prefer
the alternative of making; a righ.1t turn out of the driveway, travel south on Podva
Road and make a 1J-turn at the Adair Court or Morris Ranch Road intersections:
The applicant hired a traffic consultant to answer some of these concerns and I
submitted a traffic study to our department on November 12, 1980. In summary, the
traffic report outlined the typical traffic generation rates for four different kinds of
land uses for this .site, i.e., medical/dental offices, general offices, resideritial and r
nursery school. Medical/dental offices would generate the most traffic out of the
four types of land uses. The riursery school would generate .the least during; the PM
peak Dour. The traffic study rec.:(immendcd five mitigation measures to mitigate the
potential traffic problem at this intersection:
1. Select one of the lowest traffic-generating land uses.
2. : If a nursery school is selected, restricted starting and stopping hours so as
not to conflict with street traffic peak hours.
3. Remove two palm trees and move the project driveway as far to the
southwest as possible.
4. Restrict outbound vehicles from the project to right turns only.
r
5. No project, unless another access route is developed.
We concur with the applicant's traffic engineer that this development, due to its
close proximity with a heavily congested intersection, should only be allowed a land
use that will generate a rr)inirnurn arnount of traffic. Although it would be an
advantage aesthetically to keep the palm trees in the front of this development, it is
t
our opinion that it is more important to t:ry to locate the driveway as far away from i
the intersection as po�;sihlc, which, requires removal of at Icrtst two palm trees. The
traffic engineer's recorYrynenclation to restrict: outbound vehicles to rif;lit turns only
may decrease traffic conflicts at the intersection, but would most likely be strongly
opposed by the local residents south of the proposed development, and may create
more traffic conflicts at the Adair Court intersection.
r
Based upon theabove, we would .like to revise our original recommended conditions
of approval to reflect the above comments :ls shown on the attached list of
recornrnended conditions. Any questions regarding this merno may be directed to
Pat Flynn of this office at 372-21,15.
i
PFCC
2052-80122680
cc Doug Offeniiziet7
i
F
I
t
I
i
i
i
i
r
• I
CONDITIONS 1-01j� APPROVAL OF PF"RMIT 2052-80
(PUBLIC WORKS DLPARTMENT)
A. This development shell conl.orrn to the provisions of Title 8 and Division. 914
of the Ordinance Codc. Any exceptions therefrom must be speci>Eica)►y
listed in this conditional Approval statement. '
B. Construct curb, four-foot six-inch sidewalk (width measured frorn curb
facie), necessary longitudinal drainage, and pavement widening and
intersection reconstruction on Podva Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard.
This condition is only required if the Danville Livery has not guaranteed ;
construction of these irnprovernents prior to issuance of a building permit
for Development Permit 2052-80.
C. Widen the driveway access to a rninitnuin 24 foot width and locate it as
close to the southerly property line as possible.
D. Install all new utility disti ibution services underground.
E. Install street lights on Podva Road. The final number and location of the ;
lights will be deterrninedl by the Traffic Engineer. This property has been
annexed to County Service Area L-42 for the maintenance and operation of
the street lights.
I
F. Prevent storm drainage,i originating on the property and conveyed in a
concentrated manner, fro;rn draining across the sidewalk or on driveways.
G. Submit irnprovernent f lans to the Public Works Department, Land
Developrnent Division, for. review; pay the inspection fee, plan review fee
and applicable lighting arid fire hydrant fees. The improvement plans shall
be submitted to the Public Works Department, Land Development Division,
prior to the issr_rarrce of. ;any Building Permit. The review of improvement
plans and the, payrnerrt of! all fees shall be completed prior to the clearance
of any buildinf; for occupancy by the Public Works Department. If
occupancy is requested ;prior to construction of improvements, a Road
Improvement Agreement; shall be executed with Contra Costa County and
bonds shall be posted as required by the Agreement to guarantee completion ;
of the work.
H. Submit site grading and' drainage plans to the Public Works Department,
Land Development Division for review prior to the issuance of any building
permit or the construction of site improvements.
I. The landscaping regcrircci along the Podva Road/San Ramon Valley Road
frontages shall be of a type that will not grow to a height exceeding three
feet.
2052-8082.280
Revised 12-26-80
.. I
SAN RAMOH `GALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
800 SAN RAMON VALLEY BOULEVARD
DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526 '
ADMINISTRATION FIRE PREVENTION DUREAU
Phone: 637-4212 Phone:.837.39E t i
October 8 , 1980 i
Contra Costa County
Planning Department
P.O. Box 9S1
Martinez , CA 94553 j
E
Subject: San Ramon Fire Department Requirements (Sprinklers)
Addendum to Letter of Requirements Dated 8/14/80
i i
References : Title 24 California Administrative Code
Title 19 California Administrative Code
Uniform Fire Code 1973 and 1974 Supplement
San. Ramon Valley' Fire Protection District Ordinances .#3 and 4
f
County File : L.U.P . 2052 -80
Dear. Staff:
Requirements.:
A. Building(s) to be completely protected by automatic fire sprinklers.
.Sprinkler plans to be approved by the . Insurance Service Office or a
licensed Fire Protection rn-ineer. Sprinkler System design in multi- f
story buildings shall incorporate the identification of each floor
individually for the purpose of zone annunciation (Ordinance # 4
and UFC 13. 30lb) .
B . Fire Department Connection (FDC) and Post Indicator Valve (PIV) will
be required: Location to be generally at the main driveway in back
of the sidewalk for each 'building. Final placement to be approved
by the Fire District. I'I!V, OS f, Y and Butterfly Valves are to be
supervised with a tamperswitch, central station supervised. Fire F
Department to be notified upon activation of the tamper switch. '
(Ordinance # 4 , llg and UF;C 13. 301f add. )
C. Automatic sprinkler and automatic fire detection systems to be super-
vised by an approved cent Iral station with retransmission by tape to
our Fire Station. In addition, a follow-up by telephone call is re-
quired. Fire Department :to be advised of the alarm company awarded
the contract . If. immediate occupancy is unavoidable prior to installa-
tion of completed alarm system, approval from the Fire Prevention r
Office is required (UFC 1!3 . 301f add. plus S .R. Ordinance. # 4)-.
D. Fire 'extinguishers hax-in the 'n'r.'nimum rating of 2A 1-0 BG will be .re -
quired. The number to l)e specified by the Fire District at a later
date . (UFC 13 . 301)
E . Plans for building , sprinkler , detector, annunciator panel and zoning
to be approved by the Fire District . Sprinkler or detector plans
shall be approved by ISOor licensed professional Fire Protection
Engineer prior to submittal to the Fire District.
F. Underground piping test and sprinkler test to be witnessed by a Fire
District Inspector (UFC 13. 301b) .
G. Fees for plan checking and inspection to be charged. Fee to be.
$25_. 00 plus . 01 cents per square foot. of floor area (Ordinance # 4) . .
i
1i. A public water supply and hydrants complying with EB;,tUD specifications
and in accordance with ISO requirements and installed prior to con-
struction . Number of hydrants and location to be determined by the.
Fire District. (UFC 13. 301c,d)
I . Access roads shall be twenty (20) foot minimum horizontal and 13 ' 6"
minimum vertical clearance . Roads shall be all-weather hard surfaced,
meeting County standards ; Temporary all-weather roads capable of
supporting fire apparatus will suffice during the initial stage of
construction. (UFC 13. 301d add. plus S.. R. Ordinance # 3, :13. 208)
G
J. The exhaust hood and duct system of all commercia'1 ranges , fryers ,
broilers and other cooking devices shall be protected by an approved
automatic fire protection system incorporative full surface protec-
tion and . fuel shut off. ' (UFC 13. 305 plus 13 . 301b)
K.. Exit doors , exit hardware and exit lighting shall be installed in
accordance with Title 19 ; California Administrative Code.
L. Fees for tanks and manifolds not exceeding $4S . 00 to be charged.
(Ordinance # 4) Fuel tank plans to be approved by Electrical Divi- .
sion, Mr. Maury Wagner, County Building Department, .prior to Fire
District approval .
M. Weeds are to be ahated prior to construction and maintained weed-
free during the construction stages . (Ordinance # 3 , 37 . 10.4)
Very truly yours ,
Michael 19. Blodgett, Chief
by
Hank Carstensen , Sr. Fire Insp.
HC : jk Fire Prevention Bureau
CC' Applicant - Doug Offenhartz
Public Works
i
SAN RAMON VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ;
800 SAN RAMON VALLEY DOULEVARD
DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526
ADMINISTRATION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
Phone:837.4212 Phone:837.3981
r
i •
August 14 , 1980
Contra Costa County
Planning Department oc„
P .O. Box 951 oy'.
Martinez , CA 94553 �o
Subject: L.U.P . 2052-80 1 a�
Fire Protection Requirements - Medical Building
Ref. #l . Uniform Fire Code, Danville Fire Protection District `
Ordinance #7
Dear Pair. Vanderpriem:
The San Ramon Valley .Fire Protection District has reviewed the Subject .
subdivision map received by. this office on August 130, 1980 and hereby
advise your department of the ifollowing requirements and recommendations.
I . Requirements
i
.A. Sec. 13.208 (Ref. #1)
i
Access roadways shalt/ be not less than 20 feet of unobstructed
width (plus adequate additional width to accommodate reasonably
expected on-street parking) and having a minimum of 1.3 feet
6 inches unobst.r.ucted vertical clearance. These access ways
shall have all-weather driving surfaces , capable of supporting
the imposed loads of 'fire apparatus .
B . . Sec. 13 . 3014 (Ref. #1)
Water supply for fire; protection and all-weather driving surface
access roads shall beinstalled and made serviceable prior to
construction.
C. Sec. 8. 103 (Ref. #1)
Permits are .required. by this office for medical gas systems .
Complete plans and. specs shall be submitted to this office and
approval obtained prior_ to commencement of any such work. g
E
I . Requirements (continued)
i
D. This deve.lopmerit shall be required to comply with applicable.
sections of these State Fire Marshal ' s Rules and Regulations
including , but not limited to:
Exiting, doors, hardware and lighting;
Occupancy load limits , capacity posting;
Flame resistive qualities of drapes , curtains ,
decorations ;
Fire extinguishers , automatic extinguishing i
system, etc. y'
The above requirement--s may chinge depending on the final plan (s) which
shall be submitted to this office.
If we can be of further. assistance to you, please contact us at 837-3981. i
i
Very truly yours ,
Michael W. Blodgett, Chief
by
IIank Carstensen, Sr. Fire Insp.
Fire Prevention Bureau
HC: jk
i
i
'i
i
i
' I
i
41
op
03
/yam
10.
••ice,.
I'
,
,1
' t
701
•L.. ` l ' �. ,ham- �`.
17,
N
_ i sx
t
1
t
.t
• � �-��,� 1t 4 1 - ~`tit�; .�'�
^� e' �1,�: '1t t1+ tic•�•' � 5
�, ,� ` � � 1 -}�- 1 •. � til
- 34
IIJK
j � •y f,� 1 y� a
Q►=
AL
to 1p
/J rLr.�.•� , .
i
• E
J �
. t .� S •�. �. �;; 1 � __ \'� �. \\\\rte
nJ
.010 y
00
� f
• i
t
t
:, 4 ^� t • , ,i l t ,
r,
i
I
SAN ['Ali ) V�1LL1.Y AI?I::1 f'I_APdPII(1G COMMUSSO
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
DOUG OFFENHARTZ (Applicant) PAT LENZ AND MARK STOTT (Owners) , County File #2052-80:
The applicant requests approval of ';a 3 doctor medical office building with a variance to
allow a structure of 36' in lieight ! (35' maximum allowed) and a 0' sideyard (20' required) .
Subject property is described as fol]_ows: A .0.45 descriptive parcel fronting approxi-
mately 75 feet on the west side of !Podva Road approximately 200 feet south of the inter-
section of Podva Road and San Ramori Valley Boulevard, in the Danville area. (A-2) ,"
(CT 3452.02) (Parcel 4208-462-013) ;
I
- I '
Ori October 8, 1980 _ having been fixed as the time for hearing on this itela, the
meet!rig i.ias dec i a� ed open by -the Chairman.
Upon the Motion of COMMISSIONER SCHLENDORF, Seconded by COMMISSIONER YOUNG, this appli- .
cation was rescheduled for hearingion December 3, 1980 by a unanimous vote.
On December 3, 1980 having been fixed as the time for hearing on this item, the hearing
was declared open by the Chairman. ]
Upon the Motion of COMMISSIONER WRIGHT, Seconded by COMMISSIONER SCHLENDORF, this appli=
cation was rescheduled for hearingljon January 7, 1981 by a vote of 6 AYES (Mr. Young
not replaced as yet) .
On January 7, 1981 having been .fixed as the time for hearing on this items, the hearing
was declared open by the Chairman. ;
I
Upon the Motion of COMMISSIONER SCHLENDORF, Seconded by COMMISSIONER HIRSCH, this appli-
cation was rescheduled for hearingjon January 21, 1981 by a vote of 6 AYES (Wright absent) .
i
On January 21, 1981, having been fixed as the time for hearing on this item, the hearing
was declared open by. the Chairman. !
Staff presented the staff report, described the project and explained the location. Staff
recommended denial.
I
I
I
The following persons appeared to rlepresent and in favor of the application and in
opposition:
DOUG OFFENHARTZ stated there are four major issues involved; (1) land use. This was
designated as low density residential during the Danville Mercantile & tivery hearings
according to staff, and he was never aware during those hearings, that this property
was being amended. lie was under the impression that only the property owned by LaJolla .
Development was being discussed. He was surprised that he was not consulted about their
land use plans. Nevertheless, the General Plan was changed to low density residential, and
rather than challenge that change, they have sought to work with this General Plan desig-
nation. He strongly believes their: pl.an is appropriate in this location; the scale of
the building proposed is residential in character. (2) The visual impact of the Podva
farm house on its three Adair Court neighbors. (3) Traffic. After presenting their
traffic study, the staff recognizes this is not a major problem. (4) The value of saving
the old Podva farm house.
MARK STOTT, (a 40 year resident of the valley) stated he has the support of Mr. . & Mrs.
Podva in attempting to save this house. He has seen too many fine old buildings repre-
senting the past, demolished and requested they support the project to restore this home.
(Continued page 2)
Upon tine MOTION of Cowimissioiler McFARLAND SECONDED by Commissioner WRIGHT__
the application was approved, subject to amended staff conditions (shown, in file)
i
by the f o l l oiai ng VoLe on ..._May....20,11 9.8_.1_
I
AYES: Co,;missioriers - McFARLAND, WRIGHT, HAYES
NOES: Commissioners - SCHLENDORF, BEST
ALSENT: Commissioners - KENNETT!
f" S!
ABS fA I N. Cow.m i s'. ir.�ner-s
- HIRSCH
L
i
i
Doug Offenhartz - #2052-80 Page 2
PAT LENZ (a 24 year valley resident) stated when she and Mark realized the Podva. house
was doomed for demolition, as the Deerdorf. (?) house, one of the loveliest old homes .in.
the valley had been destroyed, they had to do something to save it. Their proposal
seemed a very straight forward project to them and it didn't occur to- them that anyone,
would object to the undertaking. , They received criticism from many areas, and quickly
learned about local and County politics, and complied with much red tape. What seemed
to them as a simply exciting task of restoring an old Victorian, turned into an infinitely
greater nightmare than their original dream. If it isn't saved, in years to come they
will look back and say why didn't they save it. They have visited the buildings that
Ken Hughes has restored and were very impressed. with the quality of his work and he has .
agreed to restore the Podva house.
KEN HUGHES stated he has been restoring Victorians for about the last 5 years and cited
other types of architecture that he has restored. Restoring a Victorian borders on
$100 per square foot and this opportunity doesn' t happen very often. He felt it. would
be a devastation and the community iould lack one of its. few remaining structures, if
this were torn down.
HELAINE PRENTICE, landscape designer, specializing in Victorian gardens, stated she has
seen a great deal of preservation work in the Bay Area and nation-wide. At the Podva
house they have the.unusual opportunity of ample grounds on which to create a Victorian
garden and a developer who sees the garden as a cultural expression. Their two main
objectives were a historic evocation of a residential garden of the times and compati-
bility of the grounds .with the neighborhood. (She explained in detail the landscape
plan and types of plantings to be ued.) She feels this will be a very special and
magic place.
BLAIR PRENTICE, urban designer, stated the Podva house is a significant historical
resource and definitely worth saving. It has a very long and real history. .. The struc-
ture is basically sound and could be considered an easy restoration. He has never
encountered a client who is more willing to do a good job and wants it done right.
MR. OFFENHARTZ, in summary, asked the Commission to use the discretion that is allowed
to them by code to judgd the project based upon its merit, location, appropriateness of
use and In the best interest of thel community.
i
DICK McNEELY, representing Danville Association, stated they have taken a keen interest
in saving the Podva house since the summer of 1978, when the Danville Mercantile and
Livery proposal was first .unveiled.1 That first proposal did not include saving that
house, "and they requested it be included and the second time it was included. The third
plan showed a reduction of intensity by striking this house and the Otto house from the
project. The association has continued to support the saving of the Podva and Otto houses.
The membership opposed the commerical use of the }louse but recommended residential. One
common experience of the residents �is. the simple history of this valley but in the haste
to grow and to prosper, the physical reminders of that history have been swept aside to
make room for Mouses and for roads. This proposal is a rare opportunity to preserve a
physical manifestation of that history and the Commission needs to weight the project's
benefits .to 55,000 valley residents) against the detriment to 3 neighbors who will be
forced to look at the roof of this project. Just a few blocks away a proposal to create
medical office buildings is saving the A.J. Young house and a spectacular Victorian was .
destroyed for the shopping center where Lucky's and Longs are.
• j
l
i
Doug Offenhartz - .#2052-80 Page 3
MARK ARMSTRONG stated this use is entirely consistent with the General Plan. The
General Plan calls for residential uses, residential zoning and under that zoninga
permissible land use is medical office. If the land use is consistent with the zoning,
which is turn is consistent with the General Plan and as a matter of law, the land use
itself is consistent with the General Plan. (He cited a recent case in Marin-.)
FRED SCIIMID, representing Morris Ranch Homeowners Association in opposition, read a''
letter from the Association presideiit, .which he submitted for the record. They are
not opposed to the restoration of the. Podva house but are against the location. They
have worked for many years to get a;buffer strip to separate commercial from residential,
which is a 45 foot piece of lawn. He read from a draft plan regarding the Podva area,
a transitional area lying between commercial and residential, traffic congestion point
and it is the southern gateway to downtown Danville. Special design care is required
to accommodate these factors and to; avoid use conflicts, congestion and adverse visual
impacts. Residential areas will bei
separated from commercial areas by a landscaped
buffer zone. They have been working on that premise for 6 to 7 years. Now they are
looking at commercial butting up against residential and that is one of the reasons they
are opposed to it. (He submitted photographs of the Podva house.) The house is over-
whelming when all of the homes on Adair Court are single story. ' I,Thy. wasn't it planned
to move the house to .the right area with the right zoning, instead of moving it without '
appropriate permits to this location. They do not believe this is the proper use of the
land.
STAN A. NIELSEN, 18 Adair Court, Danville, CA stated the first he knew that the Podva
house was going to be moved was when he came home one Friday and there it was. He
checked with the County and it was moved.without a permit. According to the San Ramon
Valley Historical Society, it has no historical value. The house will have to be
completely rebuilt as .it does not conform to any current building codes. The benefit
is they can get a very low interestjrate from the government if it is a historical piece
of property. It seems to him the.commercial is more important than the historical value.
He has been awaken at least 4 timesiwith children trying to break into it. This thing
kind of snuck up on them because they thought they had come to a reasonable agreement with
the developers .of the Livery and Mercantile and the Planning Committee and they were kind ..
of set to see the whole project goin and all of a sudden this thing sort of happened.
i
DAN VERONA, 25 Adair Court, Danville, CA stated he did not feel there was a plan and
the house is at this location because it was convenient. Properly planned, the house
belongs on the front of the lot ands the parking lot behind. As mentioned, it is incon-
sistent with the DLM strategy that was to have buffer space to the residences. It was
moved without a permit. It was presented to them as a summer time project; the developer
is a principle and he intended to restore it in the summertime. .It is already on his
property. He proposed the requestibe denied because it is inconsistent with the plan
and they should save this person from any further financial investment in this house.
One decision from DLM was there wodld be one story offices on the south end of the
property as part of the buffer strip; the lawn is not the only part of the buffer strip.
If it were moved to ,the other side,itie would still find it objectionable. The location
is more objectionable than the use.;
MR. OFFENHART7., in rebuttal, stated he thinks the plan does comply with the County master
plan and the General Plan. They talked about a low density residential use for the
property and any property 75' wide could hardly be a low density use. Regarding the
i
i
i
Doug .Offenhar.tz - #2052-80 I Page 4
Regarding the alternate County plan that has been discussed in the staff repor.t,. he is
concerned the Commission approve a project with conditions that cannot be met. They
have dealt with LaJolla DevelopmentlCompany and their approach is the Podva house has
been a pain to them from the beginning and they don't want to get involved, now that
they have approval, with any modifications of their plan. Many times before they moved
the house, they contacted the president of the Morris Ranch Homeowners Association, and
tried to talk to him about their proposal and his reply was always the Danville. Livery
and Mercantile project isn't approved yet and there is still a chance they can save the
Podva house and in fact, he had a plan for saving the Podva house. That was the last
they heard of it. They contacted LaJolla Development and was advised they had 10 days
to move the house, and so they acted as they felt they needed to to save the. house from -
demolition.
Regarding starting from scratch on the house, that is not true. They will removethe
parts that are offensive but the basic house will be savecland they will only be replacing
those things which are necessary. They have no intention of applying for any government
loans to do the restoration. Therelare tax advantages which make the restoration finan-.
cially bearable and they do intend to take .advantage of those. Hank Carstenson .went out
and looked at the site and saw no fire hazard and. so informed the neighbors.
i
i
Many people tried to save the house and they found it. financially not feasible, and so
they did undertake this effort sort of out of a sense of desperation that some people in
.the community expressed to them. He thinks it is an appropriate location. It stands
close to where the original Podva house stood and the visual impact as you drive down
Sycamore Valley Road is that it appears to be almost in the same location. The reason
for putting the house back as far as it is is to .put it in a more prominent visual
position, to give it the same visual impact that the original Podva house had. The
parking lot will be very effectively screened by low landscaping.
I
The point about the summertime project that Stott and Lenz had, that's how the project
started out but after they visited the Oakland restoration of. Ken Hughes, they realized
it was not a realistic summer project and it was at that point they modified their plans
to do a professional job and that is, why they hired the Prentices and Ken Hughes as
contractor. They recognized it is not a job for amateurs.
I
They all realize it is a fast growing community and they will see many more of the old
buildings torn down to make way forloffice buildings, underground parking lots and more
profitable development. Some towns! like Jackson and Santa Fe have successfully retained
their history and charm, from their; ba.nks to their fast food restaurants.. We haven't done
this in Danville; the history is really slipping away from us. He feels this proposal
is a chance to save a part of that 'charm and a part of that history and that the
Commission will consider its approval. It is their hope that they will receive approval
tonight, to restore to landmark quality the Podva farmhouse and after it is completed,
their neighbors in the Morris Ranchidevelopment will appreciate .it as much as they do
dream of it.
i
COMMISSIONER McFARLAND asked how committed they were to the medical-dental use of the
building.
MR. OFFENHARTZ replied the restoration will cost about $280,000.00 and if there is
another use that would allow them to break even or give a small profit, there is no
commitment to that particular use. : As a residential use, he can't imagine anyone paying
$350,000.00 for a home in that location, which it would cost.
i
i
Doug Offenhartz - #2052-80 I Page 5
i
I
In response to Mr. Wright, he advised there will be about 3,000 sq. ft. in the house.
They tore off the shed and porch, about 1,000 sq. ft. , which they will replace with an
addition more in keeping with the douse.
I
I
The requested use as opposed to other uses without a rezoning, were discussed. The
building height discussed. The location of the house on the lot, was discussed. Mr.
Hayes commented this provides a good transitional use and on the whole, an excellent
proposal.
CHAIRMAN- BEST stated the proposal is an excellent one and she supports the preservation
of the Podva house. However, having gone through the lengthy difficult process of the.
Danville Livery and Mercantile, she feels their credibility is at stake in the commitment.
they made with that plan to preserve residential development as a buffer between the
existing residential area and the commercial to the north.
PAT FLYNN expressed concern of thellocation of the proposed driveway to the intersection,
which would be about 2 car lengthsifrom the intersection. Mr. Offenhartz had a traffic
study prepared for 4 uses and medical was the highest. It would amount to about 22% of
the total traffic, which is not too great, but at peak hours they might start getting
into some conflicts on that intersection. If it is at all possible, they would suggest
it be moved, possibly through the Danville Livery.
Taffic, parking, medical verses general office use, were discussed at some length.
i
COMMISSIONER McFARLAND shared concern about the traffic. She is sympathetic with the
homeowners in seeking to preserve their neighborhood; on the other hand, this is a very
worthwhile project and may be the only way to preserve this historically valuable house,
although there is some question on its historical value. Also, that is not a particu-
larly good spot to put a single family residence. She suggested possibly transferring
the parking onto the buffer area of Danville Livery.
i
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT commented he has mixed emotions about this. They really ha tie very
few old homes left. Public Works has a valid concern about traffic. The Morris Ranch
people have a very valid concern. iHe is very aware of the buffer zone negotiations during
the Danville Livery hearings. He would hate to. see this home lost.
r
COMMISSIONER SCHLENDORF stated she is very cognizant of the commitment and hard work
that went into the Danville Livery and Merchantile decision and this Commission did
give a lot of credence and respect for the_,.feelings for the people in Morris Ranch. It
is understandable that they would feel at this point that perhaps something is being
taken away that they previously had figured was settled. But she also is hearing, it's
a 'worthwhile project, it should beldone but not near me. They are going to have to
work with what they have and attempt to work out the best solution.
i
COMMISSIONER HAYES stated he wouldilike to see some of the problems resolved; the
parking,. potential noise problem. ' He would like to see the acoustical barrier moved to
the south and the parking moved toithe north, perhaps somewhat on the Danville Livery
property. If appropriate, he would move to continue this to allow the applicant time
to pursue these questions.
I
i
I '
i
Doug Offenhartz - #2052-80 Page 6
COMMISSIONER McFARLAND agreed and would. second that motion. She felt there was .a
strong community interest to locate: the Podva house close to its original location.
She would like to see the applicant pursue at least .the relocation of the parking, so
the impact on the neighbors would be less.
CHAIRMAN BEST agreed and felt it wolld be very important to pursue access through. the
Livery, as the access problem is a very, very real one.
COMMISSIONER SCHLENDORF agreed.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT commented moving the facility is not going to change the access.
If the applicant is able to work something out with Danville Livery, he should advise
staff, so staff can submit a set of conditions of approval. .
Continuance date was discussed.
Upon the Motion of. COMMISSIONER HAYES, Seconded by COMMISSIONER McFARLAND, the hearing
was continued to March 4, 1981, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners - HAYES, McFARLAND, SCHLENDORF, WRIGHT, BEST
NOES: Commissioners - NONE
ABSENT: Commissioners - .KENNETT
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - HIRSCH
On March 4, 1981 having been fixed as the time for the continued hearing on this item,
the hearing was declared open by the Chairman.
Staff advised the applicant is still attempting to work with the adjoining property
. owners and that the hearing be postponed.
Upon the Motion of COMMISSIONER WRIGHT, Seconded by COMMISSIONER SCHLENDORF, the hearing
was postponed to April 1, 1981 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners - WRIGHT, SCHLENDORF, KENNETT, BEST
NOES: Commissioners - NONE
ABSENT: Commissioners - HAYES, MFARLAND
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - HIRSCH
On April 1, 1981 having been fixed , as the time for the continued hearing on this item,
the hearing was declared open by the. Chairman.
Several of the Commissioners requested the hearing not be held, as they had just received
the staff report that -evening.
Upon the Motion of COMMISSIONER HAYES, Seconded by COMMISSIONER KENNETT, the hearing
was postponed to May 20, 1981 by a vote of 5 AYES (Wright absent, Hirsch abstained) .
;
.Doug Offenhartz - #2052-80 Page 7
On May 20, 1981 having been fixed as the time for the continued hearing on this item,
the hearing was declared open by the Chairman.
Staff presented the staff report.
i
DOUG OFFENHARTZ stated .they had met with the representatives of LaJolla Development;
they were unwilling to jeopardize the status of their development to try� to make any
amendments that would mitigate any concerns of the Commission. He had distributed toy '
the Commission, letter from LaJollalDevelopment. Hemet with the neighbor most
effected-on Adair Court, trying to 'come up with some plan to mitigate their concerns.
(He posted a map and explained in detail the changes they had made; increasing land-
scaping, altered parking plan; landscaping to blend in with LaJolla's to give park like
area.)
COMMISSIONER HAYES asked about the fence.
MR. OFFENHARTZ advised tie felt the 'existing 6 foot fence is going toprovide an effective
barrier to sound. The freeway and San Ramon Blvd. noise is going to be there regardless
and the noise that would be generated by their proposed project is insignificant to he
noise of that intersection in geneial. They considered a concrete wall but that seemed
way out of proportion to the impact of their development.
They requested LaJolla not to build the 6 foot solid fence between their properties, as
it would give them a boxed in feeling. Two six foot fences on either side of a 75 foot
wide property would be relative restricting. There is administrative flexibility to
treat that fence.
PAT LENZ stated she and Mark have leen undertaking to save the old Podva house for a
year and they have looked around this past year at the building, shopping centers, etc.
(which she cited many) and the latest was the trees that were removed on Danville Livery
which left their Podva house very exposed. All that stands between the restoration is
the Commission's O.K. and .good will and hoped that would be given tonight.
DR. JACK D. SPENCER, 10 Adair Court, Danville, CA, speaking in opposition of the commer-
cial development of the Podva ranch house on the site proposed. Ile is being asked to
become a victim of empty parking lots during evening hours, week-end and holidays,
adjacent to his back yard. Multiple events of loitering, crime and vandalism have been
well documented by the news media at similar sites and also well documented is lack of .
sufficient manpower to patrol and control succi sites by the Contra Costa Sheriff's
Department. Denial of this project does not spell doom for the structure. There are
many sites in downtown Danville zoned for this use (and he cited. several) . He believes
the Commission has .a moral obligation to the residents of this valley to uphold previous
judgment decisions and not be swayed by rhetoric. Commercial development is commercial
development.
FRED SCHMID, Adair Court, Danville, CA stated .they met with Doug, discussed various
possibilities but it is still a very large structure against single story homes. This.
giant 35' high house looms out of their backyard. Everything they .have fought for has
been a transitional zone from commercial to a buffer strip to residential. This Commission
endorsed that. Developers since 1972 agreed there should be residential to residential.
i
Doug Offenhartz - 42052-80 I Page 8
I
I
They are now looking at a situation where they haw commercial, a buffer, commercial
and residential. It just doesn't fit. Does this really meet the desire and intent that
was originally thought of? They are very firmly opposed to this, the commercial much
more than anything else because thaIt's the thing they don't waixt encroaching on resi- .
dential and this is what the. Commission has endorsed. over the years. They would
reluctantly go along with a residential use if that was the way it would go.
DAN VERONA, 25 Adair Court, Danville, CA, speaking in behalf of Jerry Screeny (?) ,
President of Morris Ranch Homeowner Is' Association. The issues are is this the right
location- for the Podva house and 1:51the use appropriate for residential orcommercial.
They are opposed to the house becaulse of the height but it fits the county standards,
so they would reluctantly go alonglwith it. The commercial is really their primary
objection.
MR. OFFENHARTZ, in rebuttal, stated) he wanted to talk about the commercial and the area.
I
(He went to the map and pointed out development in the area.) The area is clearly one
which is commercial. They could putt 8,000 sq. ft. of office building on this property.
Instead, they have the opportunityto save the Podva house and to plan this in a resi-
dential scale. A 3,000 sq. ft. building on almost an acre of ground, does not have a .
commercial scale to it and he feels it is a proper transition between all the commercial
offices in the area and the Morris �Ranch development. They have proposed a massive
amount of landscaping to buffer the two residences most .effected. The house on the
corner will probably never see the Podva house and the Schmids will probably see it for
2 or 3 years beforethe landscaping will effectively block the view. The community will
have the opportunity to enjoy and to have one of its historic residence restored to a
landmark quality in a park-like setting.
He understands the concerns expressed about the parking lot becoming a problem and they
would be willing to put a gatein the area to keep any traffic out of the property in
the evening hours and during week-ends. He feels this is an extremely appropriate use
under the land use process. He sent the Commissioners a long economic analysis and if
they did want to discuss alternatives, he would go into it. To restore the Podva house
as a residence and do no landscaping at all, they would have to sell it for $420,000.00
just to recoup their costs and the homes in Morris Ranch aren't even up to $300,000.00.
To expect this home to be worth. 50% more than the homes in Morris Ranch is not a reason-
able alternative
COMMISSIONER McFARLAND asked aboutithe parking, which she felt was inadequate.
MR. BRAGDON advised it met the code requirement. Staff was trying to .reduce the impact
on adjacent homes, so they were .not looking for more parking than the ordinance called
for.
COMMISSIONER HAYES: I think the applicant's proposal is really quite good. A good
transition; it's well detailed; landscape buffering seems to be well conceived and I
think will do a very effective jobI I would want to see that fence eliminated between
LaJolla Development and this project, unless there is some very good reason why it is
needed. I would encourage acquisition of an .agreement to allow the parking to hang over
into the landscaping on LaJolla's side.
i
I
I
I
Doug Offenhartz - #2052-80 i Page 9
MR. BRAGDON: As stated earlier, the purpose of the fence was actually to protect- this
property from the Livery, so ---
COMMISSIONER HAYES: It was for a visual screen, is that correct?
MR. BRAGDON: Yes, I don't think a 6 foot fence, given the scale of the project, was
going to stop much noise but if your Commission does approve this. project, then we 'think
the fence should be on the other silIde, on the southerly side, and that as we indicated
in the conditions of approval, allow overhang so that we can get the parking as far to
the north as possible.
CHAIRMAN BEST: At the last hearing on this I indicated that I didn't feel that I could
support this project unless it coulld be integrated into the Livery project and therefore
reduce the impact on the neighboring residents and unfortunately, that hasn't been able
to be accomplished. As much as I think it's a great plan, I really feel bound by. the
process we went through with the Livery and the obligations we incurred with. that project
and the approval, to guarantee residential development as a buffer to that area.
COMMISSIONER HAYES: There are very, few places in the community where we have large open.
spaces and when you combine the open space on the south side of LaJolla improvements and
the space within this project, which is virtually all open space, it's a very low density
development, you have a very unusual asset of green space separating and defining .the
area of commercial from the area of residential; and to place a Building within that
space which in effect, has the function of sculpture, it's a bit of mass in this open
space. To place a building with historic association, one that will be very attractively
restored, I think is a terrific ass et and something we shouldn't sacrifice.
CHAIRMAN BEST: I agree and I have no objection to the house being there, I really don't.
I have objection to the commercialluse of it.
COMMISSIONER SCHLENDORI: I too, indicated that I could not support it because of the
commercial nature and my vote against it for that reason is simply predicated on the
fact that in the process of putting the Livery and Merchantile together, a commitment
was made to the neighboring residents that there would be a buffer. I would have been
very pleased to see them come forward and indicate that they too realized there was a
value in the building and had there been any kind of support from them for it, then I
would have felt that my commitment would be all right too; but since they have chosen
not to support it in any way or form as a commercial venture and it does appear from the
numbers that were given to us that was given to us that that. is the only realistic way
to put it together, then I cannot support it, if that makes any sense. I'm not sure at
this Point anytdiing makes any sense.
COMMISSIONER 14RIGHT: This is a really tough one. I just don't want to lose that Podva
house. There is historical value to that. We've lost almost every historical home in
the valley, either through fire or destruction or vandalism or something. I think that
through a very few years, if this property is properly landscaped, if the fence is
removed between La.Jolla and this project, the visual impact will probably be negligible.
I think there is evidence, as pointed out, of other uses across the street. I am in
total sympathy with the people that may look at this home for a period of 3, 4 or 5
years; again I think it's worth preserving. I don't think it's. that an obtrusive use
and I would be inclined to supportiit.
I
i
I
Doug Offenhartz - #2052-80 Page 10
COMMISSIONER McFARLAND: I have to agree, with Nelson. I really do see an overriding
benefit in preserving the house andlit seems economic feasibility demands that it has.
to be either on this site or on theloriginal site. Those are the only available
properties that financially make the thing go. As so for that reason and because I do
think that in the long run it will not be that much of a detriment to the neighboring
homeowners because it is residentially designed, except for the parking lot. I have
to support the project.
I move that we approve land use application #2052-80. I would like to approve alterna-
tive #1 with conditions 1 - A, B and C.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Would you build into that the requirement that the fence be
removed?
COMMISSIONER McFARLAND: Yes.
C0MMISSIONER WRIGHT: I will second the motion then.
COMMISSIONER HAYES: Also would you be willing to incorporate the suggested conditions
that the applicant was. willing to impose upon himself?
COMMISSIONER McFARLAND: Yes. Installing the landscaping ana applying for the landmark
status and all that?
COMMISSIONER HAYES: Right. They're items I through N. That is part of this? O.K.
COMMISSIONER McFARLAND: I would include the gate also, as a condition of approval.
A gate at the entrance to the parking lot so that it could be closed evenings and week-
ends.
It was found that the proposed use is permissible in the zoning district through the
land use process. Conditions of approval will mitigate any adverse impacts on the
adjoining residential properties. The restoration of the Podva house will be a
historical and cultural asset to the community. The project, when completed, will
appear residential in character.
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
12 w41 .
4AP
CALIFORNIA ENVIROiVMENTAL QUALITY ACT
NOTICE OF
I
❑ Completion of Environmental Imp Iact Report
Negative Declaration of Environm ntal Significance
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
P.O. Box 951 Martinez, California 94553
Telephone:.(415) 372-2031 Contact Person Donna Endom
Project Description and Location:
DOUG OFFENHART7_ (Applicant) - PAT LENZ AND MARK STOTT (Owners), County File
2052-80: The applicant request, approval of a 3 doctor medical office building with a
variance to allow a structure of 36' in height (35' maximum allowed) and a 0' foot sideyard
(20' required). Subject property is described as follows: A 0.45 descriptive parcel fronting
approximately 75 feet on the west side of Podva Road approximately 200 feet south of the
intersection of Podva Road and San Ramon Valley Blvd., in the Danville area. (A-2) (CT
3452.02) (Parcel #208-462-013)
I
The Project Will Not Have A Significant Effect On The Environment
The proposal project is one which is allowable by LUP in a residential zone which is
consistent with the residential land use general plan designations based on prior
documents and hearings in the irnmediate area the proposed project appeared to compound
future increased traffic problems. A traffic report addressing the proposed and other uses
suggested mitigations which the applicant should be required to address the visual impact
on the adjoining residential area has been addressed by the applicant by submitting a
landscape plan to provide a visual buffer.
. . I
❑ Justification for Negative Declaration is attached.
❑ The.Environmental Impact Report is available for review at the address below:
Contra Costa County Planning Department
4th Floor, North Wing, Administration Building
Pine & Escobar Streets
Martinez, California I
Review Period for Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration: —
thru
AP 9 R3/79 Planning Department Representative
i
it 1
t •G�r
.9.
pax
•�* tin��
llq
,_ y f 41;
tA
-.t}7r. � �'x��Jdp!! i��:�'�'g4r�r":a �hb�eT�"� '!"Ndhcvl�'+•a � � � F.` .,�..
arQe11.�4�r�, r � t t
r t, �� �•i ��k �s,,'Qi j:•aJ t r - v et—A-r,I�,
�v�i�' •+� ��" ` { ,j"'moi �,,+. m �ESi'/�'nx xSoi�
Z*'s 9' a.
� -
••,_��l.• `�� � �,. ��..r i ,.y a l bj� dtp\ t�97 k. rJ r7q°.,n„ay�a•6��r. r! �� ,�
. '� \,,�g„r.••f'�,4a�:`i b•r1. !�� � vp�'rC.�Jir'�/ -Cii(-�'jis.s�, *yyii�+rF 'a. _ .' �
� T1s � � ��� r ��aS,.r�c � 'fes � ,� n ✓, t ;A��P•�°�5• '� t
1
•
:
„,. ..-.---”' Tom.-.+.r'-_' ,•�. '=T�- L __--`----.""."'...-....-
ynj��:sJ
_ t/dq � ♦a +� t i..,(l�'! Y� st s'r�'v ? tr y�
ARE r3' Rt
( Taµj fi�r?�°G�tk.��_�'�+alt� y F' �+y{+�,��.*' °r''.��3y�# 1�Y• �,�.c+t�' � �i:,�•
f {�;�C+N'}�1���`r� ��r✓,lYr• �f'X'Y �*r- � ��� YL � y�( 7.'�,�
•F 1,tC Wx. yli'e7� �•-� �ON�r} .� r�* ,g", � ,Y�; ,.. !�a iez+ A't'd �- `. ����R�-7,ai�v y'.3..? VYyq•o• ;tA " '�('�'>y'Y
,�i
uik1'' �.+,`9'' 'I.� ' „.•.
f.. ���.�Y:�'�+'t. �t y��ntr�,t/'p8. -�,�C�•r f'6'`,a.r �"'r*' '�` b t' - � -*`•U ti: ° M� i,r.�j> " .��'tiC.
r r. y-1° _,;x h',J�'�'�'�j0.� �.:w '� ��� F + !3 ts�. i .t �� •'�t�..r}''i���
",{•' 'S i_ °`tx y rj.r .''y'j`I`Sla lr' g»
,t^,•Sd�. <. f 11 r�'.r 5 r Vii,' .ik; x"�ta,r'3 4� x�'?a ntr.. �ltt3T