The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors this week unanimously overturned the county planning commission’s denial of a 24-unit apartment complex in unincorporated Martinez, agreeing with county’s staff’s recommendation that the project won’t have enough of an impact on the surrounding area to merit the denial.
West Coast Land and Development wants to build the three-story complex at a vacant site north of Windhover Way and Pacheco Boulevard.
The 24-unit Windhover Terrace apartments would include a building footprint of 22,247 square feet and a covered carport for 16 parking spaces. Four trees would be removed.
The developer requested a variance request for building heights of up to 38.5 feet where the maximum allowable height is 30 feet and a driveway width of 24.5 feet where 25 is the minimum allowed. The developer has also requested the 25% open space required be reduced to 20.5%.
The lot is approximately .77 acres — approximately 32,820 square feet and located on the east side of Windhover Way in a residential neighborhood.
A half-dozen neighbors came to the meeting to speak against the project, citing density, building height, lack of adequate parking, traffic impact, and building design not fitting in with the surroundings neighborhood. Ultimately the need for new housing in Contra Costa County overrode their concerns.
“I’ve had the opportunity to visit the property on several occasions, and let me just say infill projects are difficult, and certainly it’s difficult when people have lived in the area, to find anything that that they’re going to find totally satisfying in terms of it,” said board chair Federal Glover. “But there have been a lot of concessions made.”
Glover said the project would improve the area.
“I understand what the neighbors are saying. I understand the density issue that you’re talking about,” Glover said. “This is a project that I think in terms of what we see there today, is a very blighted area. It’s something that will give some improvement.”
16 comments
So The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors think they know better than the local residents. One wonders if Glover lived next to it would he vote yes?
24 units
16 covered parking spaces
That won’t cause problems, I’m sure.
Related to a property manager so I know how that goes when not every unit gets covered parking…
There really should be at minimum one parking space per unit. Creekside Dr in Walnut Creek is an example of what happens when landlords skimp on parking.
C-Mo
That was my thought. There should be a MINIMUM of 24 covered spaces for 24 units.
And for the record everyone, I would have voted against this due to the lack of parking
This will be The Norm from all of the “sustainable” cities grifters!!!
The people who live nearby and PAY TAXES HAVE NO SAY.
The County Board of Supervisors are deaf to the concerns of the residents.
None of them deserve the privilege of serving the County.
You mean the Board of Stupidvisors?
Just for fun look into past and future campaign contributions from relatives of those involved and unions which worked on project. An who gets hired for summer jobs with companies involved.
Naw, that would never happen.
NOPE THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN
.
Supervisor’s action does put developers and builders on notice,
County Planning Commission doesn’t matter.
.
After project turn down building plans could have reworked with fewer units, very possibly without variances and gotten Planning Commission approval.
24 apartments on just over 3/4 of an acre, . . . . really ?
.
So County rules, no longer matter ? ? ?
Is County trying to turn itself into a mess like Houston, Texas?
Are they going to put a traffic signal there too?
There will be A LOT of crashes people making left turns out of there.
Bad idea all around.
Leave it the way it is!
Protesting or speaking at meetings falls on deaf ears. You have to be able to outsmart the clowns that make these decisions. The neighbors should have planted a few Red Legged frogs or burrowing owls on the property and called the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Game over!
Wouldn’t surprise me if that strategy has been implemented before for real.
If the neighbors don’t like the developers plans, they can just BUY the PRIVATE PROPERTY from its current owner.
Those who don’t even want to pony up to buy a parcel of land have no business enlisting the government to interfere with the owner’s economic liberty.
Developer should be required to include sufficient parking.
0.66 spaces per unit is so obviously and stupidly low.
Even if all 24 units are single bedroom, I’d guess 36 parking spaces would still result in a waiting list for spots.
Joe
Sounds ridiculously low. Most families require 2.5 cars to survive on multiple income and wage earnings, just to pay the minimum rents. Just what kind of parking space will be available anyways? Moped only?
Might as well lay off the Planning Commission and save us a few bucks.
Comments are closed.