HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07201999 - D4 % Contra •
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa
.......... County
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: July 20, 1999
SUBJECT: Hearing on the appeal of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's
denial decision of vesting tentative map to subdivide 4 acres of land into 6 lots
with variances to average lot width for lot #3, lot #4, and lot #5 (County File
#SD988163). Subject property is addressed #1106 Danville Blvd., in the Alamo
area.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Uphold the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's decision to deny
Subdivision 8163 and deny the applicant's appeal as described in Alternative I below.
ALTERNATIVE BOARD ACTIONS
Listed below are two possible alternative actions that the Board could take on this appeal.
Alternative I (Deny the Project)
Adopt a motion to:
A. Declare the Board's intent to deny the applicant's appeal and
sustain the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's
denial of Subdivision 8163.
B. Sustain the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission
decision that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is not adequate and
inconsistent with the State CEQA guidelines and County CEQA
guidelines.
C. Direct staff to prepare findings for Board adoption and final Board
action on the appeal.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE — OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON July 20, 1999 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
SEE THE ATTACHED ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
XX UNANIMOUS(ABSENT #4 AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
ABSENT: —ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
SHOWN.
Contact: (510/335-1219) ATTESTED iJuly 20, 1999
cc: Community Development Department(CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF
DeBolt Civil Engineering THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Mark Armstrong
Public Works DEPUTY
AMB/mp
Appeal(County File#SD988163)
Board of Supervisors
July 20, 1999
Page 2
Alternative 11 (Approve the project)
Adopt a motion declaring the Board's intent to:
1 Accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for the
project as adequate and find it to be consistent with State and County
CEQA guidelines.
2. Direct applicant to modify the map for 5 lots which addresses
the Commission's concerns regarding density and set a hearing date
for consideration of the revised map.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION,
The vesting tentative map application was filed with the Community Development
Department on January 21, 1998 to subdivide approximately 4 acres of land into 6 lots.
The original proposal showed a 20 foot private road within a 30 foot easement accessing
the 6 lots from the center of the property with variances to average lot widths. An
incomplete letter was sent to the applicant on February 19, 1998. The applicant submitted
several revised drawings dated February 26, 1998, May 14, 1998, and January 28, 1999.
The final revised map submitted by the applicant dated May 12, 1999 showed the roadway
on the north side within a 46 foot access easement. The Mitigated Negative Declaration
was posted from December 29, 1998 to January 29, 1999.
The Alamo Improvement Association recommended denial of the project as the Alamo
Improvement Association wanted the YMCA and the proposed 6 lot subdivision to be
evaluated as one project. The County Zoning Administrator referred this item to the San
Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission as allowed by Section 26-2.1206 of the
County Zoning Ordinance.
SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
This subdivision was originally scheduled before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission on April 21, 1999, rescheduled to May 5, 1999, and then continued to May
19th, June 16th, and June 23rd. After taking testimony at these meetings, the Commission
denied the 6 lot subdivision. The four commissioners who voted to deny the subdivision
stated that:
a. The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by staff was not adequate and
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required.
b. The proposed 6 lots on 4 acres of land was too dense.
C. The location of the private road on the north side of the property was not
appropriate due to the impact on existing residences.
d. The proposed pattern of development with lots backing on to Danville
Boulevard is inconsistent with the pattern of development on Danville
Boulevard.
e. They found no compelling reason to grant the requested variances.
The Commission discussed the possibility of a focused Environmental Impact Report
dealing with transportation/circulation, and cumulative traffic impact issues. They
concluded that even if an Environmental Impact Report was done, the proposed 6 lots on
4 acres was too dense and they would not approve the project as proposed.
Appeal(County File#SD988163)
Board of Supervisors
July 20, 1999
Page 3
The applicants filed an appeal to the Board of Supervisors on the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission's decision on June 25, 1999.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Generally, the Community Development Department carries forward the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission decision on projects. The San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission raised a number of concerns related to the potential traffic impacts
associated with the proposed 6 unit subdivision. Their concerns focused on the scope and
adequacy of the traffic impact analysis. Staff notes that the Emerald Homes project was
subjected to a traffic impact analysis according to a well established and accepted
methodology. The analysis concluded that the Emerald Homes project would result in
traffic conditions that are within the standards established by Contra Costa County and the
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). The traffic analysis provides more than
adequate documentation that the Emerald Homes project would adhere to the Level of
Service (LOS) standards established in the Growth Management Element of the County's
General Plan. As such, staff believes the proposed mitigated negative declaration
adequately addressed all environmental impacts including traffic and is consistent with
State and County CEQA guidelines. Hence, staff is recommending that as an alternative,
the Board adopt the mitigated negative declaration and direct the applicant to submit a
revised site plan which addresses the issues raised by the San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission. A more detailed analysis of the issues raised at the San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission are as follows.
Is the Proposed Subdivision Growth Inducing?
Staff analyzed potential CEQA issues relating to growth inducing impacts
segmentation and cumulative impacts. Staff concluded that the proposed
subdivision was not growth inducing, since the private access easement between
the YMCA and Emerald Homes would remain irrespective of the decision on the
subdivision. The easement is not the result of the approval of the subdivision.
Did the Lead Agency (County) Segment the Project?
CEQA does not permit an agency to lisegmently or "piece mealyy a project into
smaller parts if the effect is to avoid full disclosure of environmental impacts.
However, the private access easement agreement between Emerald Homes and
the YMCA is not subject to County approval and, therefore, is not a project within
the meaning of CEQA. The YMCA property and Emerald Homes property are
owned by separate, independent projects and are permitted within the
zoning/general plan with appropriate entitlements. The County has no authority to
require concurrent processing evaluation of those two separate projects as one
project under CEQA or any other law or regulation.
Is the Cumulative Traffic Adequately Addressed?
The Emerald Homes project would generate only six trips during P.M. peak hour
and this would have negligible impact on the local street network. In fact, the "A/B"
Levels of Service at two nearby signalized intersections on Danville Boulevard, at
Hemme Avenue and Camille Avenue, would not change as a result of approval of
the six unit project. The Emerald Homes project is well below the threshold of 100
peak hour trips required under Measure C-1988 to prepare a traffic study.
Additionally, in response to various requests, a cumulative traffic analysis was
prepared for the Emerald Homes project. The peak hour traffic of the Emerald
Homes project was analyzed at the Danville Boulevard/Stone Valley Road
intersection with other probable future projects, which included the proposed nearby
Appeal(County File#SD988163)
Board of Supervisors
My 20, 1999
Page 4
YMCA facility, expansion of Monte Vista High School, and the recently approved
Stone Valley Oaks residential subdivision. The cumulative traffic analysis
determined that even when other nearby projects are factored, the incremental
traffic impacts of this six unit project are very minor at the Danville Boulevard/Stone
Valley Road intersection. The Emerald Homes project plus other future nearby
projects would not significantly affect the future operations at this intersection and
the LOS standards in the County General Plan can be maintained.
What is the affect on Danville Boulevard traffic if Subdivision 8163 is approved?
Single family homes, such as the six proposed in Subdivision 8163, are generally
expected to produce one trip per unit during the peak hour. This would equate to
6 peak hour trips from the proposed project. The current PM peak hour traffic on
Danville Boulevard (as reported in Abrams Associates' July 1999 Traffic Impact
Study, Figure 4) is 1079 trips on Danville Boulevard. The addition of 6 peak hour
trips represents less than a 0.6% increase. This would be considered to be a
negligible effect on the overall traffic on Danville Boulevard.
The subdivision itself does not warrant a separate left turn pocket for the expected
traffic. However, as partial mitigation for their impacts, the subdivision has been
conditioned to dedicate sufficient right-of-way along their frontage of Danville
Boulevard to allow construction of a two-way left turn lane, if warranted in the future
by other developments, such as the proposed YMCA.
What affect will the proposed left tum pocket for Subdivision 8163 / YMCA
have on the existing left tum Pocket at Hemme Avenue?
Two options are being considered to facilitate left turn movement from Danville
Boulevard into the YMCA access road- a standard left turn pocket at the access
road, and a two-way left turn pocket between Hemme Avenue and the YMCA
access road.
The standard left turn pocket at the YMCA road would have stacking room
for two cars, and would provide transitions and deceleration areas between it and
the existing left turn pocket at Hemme Avenue. The Hemme Avenue left turn pocket
would be lengthened from 80 feet to 112 feet to allow stacking room for four cars.
This additional stacking capacity in the left turn pocket at Hemme Avenue should
improve circulation for cars during the school peak hour.
The two-way left turn lane would be an extension of the two-way left turn lane
already in place on Danville Boulevard immediately north of Hemme Avenue. This
design combines the deceleration and stacking functions into one shared lane that
may be used by cars turning left from either direction. It also serves as an
acceleration lane for cars turning left onto Danville Boulevard. As proposed here,
it would extend between Hemme Avenue and the YMCA access road, a distance
of approximately 390 feet. This provides greatly increased stacking capacity at
Hemme Avenue and should also improve circulation for cars during the school
peak hour.
The Public Works Department prefers the option of the two-way left turn pocket for
this location. For unusual events, such as an "open house" at the Rancho Romero
Elementary School, or an evening function at the YMCA, the two-way left turn lane
could better handle the peak demands because of the shared stacking area. In
addition, it would allow a safer "landing-zone"for cars entering Danville Boulevard
from the various driveways and minor streets between Hemme and the Subdivision
8163 site.
Appeal(County File#SD988163)
Board of Supervisors
July 20, 1999
Page 5
The Public Works Department is also working to increase the capacity and safety
of the intersection and lessen the backups that occur in the morning peak hour,
when parents are dropping off their children at Rancho Romero School. Currently,
cars turning left without a green arrow from northbound Danville Boulevard onto
Hemme Avenue are slowed by through traffic and by cars attempting to turn right
from southbound Danville Boulevard onto Hemme Avenue. The signal is proposed
to be modified to provide a left turn green arrow while prohibiting right turn on red.
The Public Works Department is also proposing to the school district that they
consider implementing a staggered start time, to minimize the simultaneous rush
of parents dropping off their children at the school. These measures, along with
the improvements to the left turn pocket / lane will help reduce the backup of cars
waiting to turn left onto Hemme Avenue in the AM peak hour.
What are the impacts of changing the subdivision's access road from a shared
road with YMCA at the north end of the property to a separate road at the center of
the property serving
i only the subdivision?
Changing the location of the subdivision access road will have no effect on
the traffic volumes or timing of traffic peaks on Danville Boulevard because the
same number of cars will be separated onto two adjacent access points. But
separating the subdivision access road from the YMCA access road adds one
additional access point into an area already crowded with driveways and private
roads. Generally, it is preferable to minimize the number of access points to
thoroughfares like Danville Boulevard. If the subdivision access road is separated
as proposed, southbound cars entering the subdivision will turn left without the
protection of the YMCA's proposed left turn pocket.
Separating the access points for the subdivision and the YMCA will also have no
affect on proposed YMCA left turn pocket or two-way left turn lane, as the location
of the YMCA access road, and thus its distance from Hemme Avenue, will not
change.
ADDENDUM TO ITEM DA
July 20, 1999 Agenda
This is the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for a hearing on the
appeal by DeBolt Engineering(Applicant) and Emerald SVLT LLC (Owner), from the
decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission denying the request
for a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide 4 acres of land into 6 lots with variances to
average lot width for Lot#3 (103 feet requested), Lot#4(105 feet requested) and Lot#5
(110 feet requested),where a minimum of 120 feet is required. (County File
#SD98-8163) The property is located at 1106 Danville Blvd.,Alamo area.
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department Director presented the staff report
and recommendations. Aruna Bhat, Community Development Department was available
for questions. Heather Ballenger,Public Works Department was also present.
The public hearing was opened, and the following people presented testimony:
Mark Armstrong, Esq., Counsel for applicants and owner;
Gene DeBolt,DeBolt Civil Engineering, 811 San Ramon Valley Blvd.,Danville;
Charlie Abrams, Traffic Engineer;
Dave Lazares, 19209 Ponuromo Drive, Saratoga;
John Henderson, Alamo Improvement Association, 2445 Southview
Drive,Alamo;
Jim Strinz, 80 Corwin Drive, Alamo;
Scott Coture, San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, 166 Teracina
Drive, San Ramon;
Thom Martin, YMCA, 1229 La Gonda Way,Danville-,
John Mullen, 1040 Adrienne Drive, Alamo;
Mark Day,Dahlin Group Architects, 1224 Tulane Drive, Walnut Creek;
Karl Danielson, Dahlin Group Architects, 2671 Crow Canyon Road, San Ramon;
A. Watson, 6 La Sonoma Drive, Alamo;
Jim Schreitmuller, 151 Daniel Drive,Alamo;
Jonathan Kopp, 1200 Danville Blvd., Alamo;
Catherine Reichhold, 171 Daniel Drive, Alamo;
John Perduk, 160 Daniel Drive,Alamo;
John Montgomery, 121 South Avenue, Alamo;
Randy Nahas, 253 Lark Lane, Alamo;
Richard Bottarini, 18 Ambleside,Danville.
The following people did not speak,but submitted comment cards which the Chair read
into the record:
Diana Guy, 46 Castille Court, Danville;
Kevin Brice, 1029 La Gonda Way, Danville;
Sam Tullis, 1206 Danville Blvd., Alamo;
Ali Routh, 145 Corral Circle, San Ramon;
Paula Routh, 145 Corral Circle, San Ramon;
Shawna,Routh, 145 Corral Circle, San Ramon;
Jennifer O'Leary, 8975 Alcosta Blvd., #102, San Ramon;
Bill Thiessen, 9005 Alcosta Blvd., #223, San Ramon;
Michael Routh, 145 Corral Circle, San Ramon;
Todd O'Leary, 4064 Wilson Lane, Concord;
Jessica Waters, 1029 La Gonda Way,Danville;
Fred Stickney, 1318 Rimer Drive, Moraga;
Mariah Straka, 46 Zander Court, Orinda;
David Davis, 209 Siskiyou Court, Walnut Creek.
The Board discussed the issues. Following Board discussion, Supervisor Gerber moved
that the Community Development Department staff provide the Board with the following
information relative to the proposed matter:
1. Supervisor Gerber proposed that the Board continue the hearing to
September 14, 1999, at 1:00 p.m.;
2. Options be reviewed for access to the proposed subdivision, one would be a
joint access to Danville Blvd. at Woodhaven, and two separate access points from
Danville Blvd;
3. Regarding left turn movements from Danville Blvd., the advantages and
disadvantages between left hand turn pockets and the two-way left hand turn issue;
4. Possible access controls for the YMCA such as a right in or out only;
5. Traffic volumes on Danville Blvd. in a comparative way, including the existing
conditions,with Emerald Homes as proposed, and including the YMCA and Emerald
Homes as proposed, and the approximate number of homes there might be if there were
homes on the YMCA property;
6. Regarding the same areas and combinations regarding impacts on Stone Valley
Road and Danville Blvd. and include the level of service;
7. The impacts on Danville Blvd. south of the project;
8. The impacts on Hemme Ave.;
9. Accident information from appropriate agencies;
10. Adequate site distance issues coming in and out of the proposed access points
and/or any of the comparative access points;
11. On school related congestion regarding Hemme Ave.;
12. What can be done on Hemme Ave. that would improve that situation;
13. Regarding emergency access during heavily congested periods, and include
any plan for using it as emergency access;
14. The creek structure setback area and demonstrate if the area shown on the
tentative map is adequate, give further clarification;
15. Regarding the proposed creek trail location;
16. The variance issue and the fact that many homes would require a variance if
we were applying the same standards to their property now. And if possible know
whether those lots were approved when rules were different or not, and have there been
any recent subdivisions approved where they were given the same kinds of variances that
the applicant is requesting;
17. The Planning Commission's questions regarding the adequacy of CEQA,
request that staff provide a comparison of what is required under CEQA for the following
variations: The Emerald proposal and YMCA, the Emerald proposal with houses on
YMCA property, and relative CEQA requirements.
Supervisor Canciamilla suggested as an amendment to the motion,that the requested
information include a list of other recreational facilities that are available for the public in
Alamo, and what parcels are available for affordable housing in Alamo.
Supervisor Gerber accepted the amendments, and Supervisor Gioia seconded the motion.
The Board then took the following action:
CONTINUED to September 14, 1999, at 1:00 p.m.,the hearing on the appeal
by DeBolt Engineering (Applicant) and Emerald SVLT LLC (Owner), from the
decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. (County File
SD98-8163); and DIRECTED that the Community Development Department staff
provide information relative to the proposed subdivision as requested by the Board
today.
2