Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09141999 - D5 Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa FROM: DENNIS 1. BARRY, AICA County COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: September 14, 1999 SUBJECT: Continued 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 , lot , and lot#5 (County File )a Subject property Is addressed#1106 Danville Blvd., in the Alamo area. SPECIFIC U RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION aECDMMENAD 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. Listed below are two possible alternative actions that the Board could take on this appeal. Iter tive I (Deny the Project) Adopt a motion to: X Declare the Board's intent to deny tete applicant's appeal and sustain the San Ramon Hailey Regional Planning Commission's denial of Subdivision 8163. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _K YES SIGNATURE _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR __ - ---- RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE — OTHER Ifs,` S'- ACTION F BOARD ON s � � APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER x SEE THE ATTACHED ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION. OTE OF SUPERVISORS HER BY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X.X UNANIMOUS(ASSENT - - 9 AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES. NOES:_ AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSE?iT: AB TA€N: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN, Contact,Aruna B�al 925-335-1219 ATTESTED agp � ""�b .- ��9 9 cc, Community Development Depadment(COUI) PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF Della€t I'M!Eng nee ing THE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR Emeragd SVLT LLC AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Mark,Armstrong t i `4 EPUTY AMS/mv P'�:`iu't�r��n/`L•€3�7�`Clit�r�/�EI���£�e.�.^e : Appeal (County File #SD988163) Bayard of Supervisors September 14, 1999 Page 2 B. Sustain the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission decision that the Mitigated legative 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. AIt r ative 11 (Approve the project) Adopt a action declaring the Board's intent to: A. Accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for the project a adequate and find it to be consistent with State and County CEQA guidelines. B, Direct applicant to modify the reap for 5 lots which addresses the Commission's concerns regarding density and set a hearing date for consideration of the revised reap. BAQKGBQ -UNDINEQR `1 I-QN a Board tools testimony on July 20. 1999 and continued the appeal to September 14, `I gg and directed staff to evaluate a number of issues including access options, traffic impacts, school traffic on Hernme Avenue,e, sight distance, emergency access, variances granted in the past, adequacy of QA# currently available recreational activities in Alamo and potential properties available to affordable housing. A. What options are being considered for accessing both the Emerald Homes subdivision and the YMCA facility from Danville Boulevard? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? "Tree access options are being considered: tint o� r d tdg Qt t eral�pm gim—b—divislon Advtag a. Combines access points onto Danville Boulevard. b. Allows cars accessing Emerald Homes to use proposed lett turn pocket on Danville Boulevard. Disadvotages, a. Access road doesn't line up with other private roads on Danville Boulevard. b. Access road is located chase to existing homes to the north. 2. olnt from tb cnt�r of tl rrald ilcmbdlyll� oposit A�oo �yU Adag . a. Combines access points onto Danville Boulevard. b. Allows cars amassing Emerald Nomas to use proposed lett turn pocket on Danville Boulevard, Appea5 (County File D96816 ) Board of Supervisors September 14, 1999 Plage 3 C. Allows longer left turn leas into shared road because of greater distance from femme Avenue. d. Avoids placing YMCA access road traffic directly adjacent to existing Disadvant ee . Routes all YMCA traffic through the center of the new Emerald biome subdivision. b. YMCA access road would not cross San Ramon Creek at optimal location. 3, ggate .s wWt MCA access_ t. df t dd " Arlt i3r �it Woodbayen AdY nt—a9 . Separates YMCA traffic from Emerald Homes subdivision. b. Aligns access with another private road. isadvantage a. Adds an additional access point onto a roadway already crowded with driveways and private roads. b. Cars accessing the Emerald Homes subdivision would not be able to use YMCA left turn lane unless two-way turn lane were extended beyond YMCA access road. B. "what options are being considered for left turn movements Into the YMCA access road" What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? Two options are being considered to facilitate left turn movements from Danville Boulevard into the YMCA access road: a standard left tura pocket at the access road, and a two-way left turn pocket between Hrne Avenue and the access road. The standard left tura pocket would abut an expanded left turn pocket at Hernme Avenue.. The two-way left turn pocket would extend continuously from Hemme Avenue to the YMCA access road. I. Back tobacl left t r ockets Her me Avenge and `!(M_ ro d 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 tura pocket at Hemme Avenue. The Hernme 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 tura pocket at Hernme Avenue should improve circulation for cars during the school peak hour. Advantaces. a. Will provide refuge for cars turning left cats YMCA access road. b. Will expand storage capacity of existing left turn pocket at Hemme Avenue. datages. a. Cannot handle extreme traffic as well as the two-way left tura lane. b. Confusing for access to driveways 1 private roads between YMCA access road and Demme Avenue. Appeal (County File # 3968163) Board of Supervisors September 14, 1999 Page 4 2. tt � � This two-way left turn lane would be an extension of the two-way left turn leas already in place on Danville Boulevard immediately north of Hernme Avenue. This design combines the deceleration and stacking functions into one shared lana that may be used by cars turning left from either direction. As proposed hare, it would extend between Demme Avenue and the YMCA access road, a distance of approximately 400 feet. It can also be extended to the south for approximately 200 feet along the Emerald Homes frontage to provide an acceleration lana for traffic turning left from the YMCA access road. This extension could also be used to tura left into the Emerald Homes subdivision if it had a separate entrance to Danville Boulevard. The two-way left tura lane also provides greatly increased stacking capacity at Hernme Avenue, which should improve circulation for cars during the school peak hour. For unusual events, such as an "open houses at the Rancho Romero Elementary School, or an evening function at the YMCA, the two-way loft turn lane could better handle the peak demands because of the shared stacking area. In addition, the two-way left tura lane would provide a safe left lana for cars accessing the various driveways and minor streets between Hernme and the YMCA access road. It also would serve as an acceleration lane for these cars when turning left onto Danville Boulevard. �d"d a ft v a. Will provide refuge for cars turning left onto YMCA access road. b. Handles extreme traffic better than the back to back turn pockets. C. Will greatly expand storage capacity of existing left tura pocket at Demme Avenue. d. Improves access to private reads and driveways between YMCA access road and Hernme Avenue, e,. Can be extended to the south for approximately 200' to provide acceleration lane for cars entering southbound Danville Boulevard from the YMCA and access to a separate access to the Emerald domes subdivision. Disadvantage. Perception that a more "urban" solution is being applied on "rural" Danville Boulevard, levard, Are these two options compatible with the Demme Avenue intersection? Either of these two options will be able to adequately fit in the 400 feet between the YMCA load and Demme avenue. Either one will provide additional stacking capacity for left turns at Hernme Avenue. D. What about limiting access to right-in, right-out? Prohibiting left turns for cars entering the site (Right-turn in only) would negatively impact Danville Boulevard. Cars that would normally turn left into the YMCA road would be forced to make a -turn at or before the next intersection at Camille Avenue. Prohibiting left turns for cars exiting the site (Right-tura out only) would improve internal circulation on the YMCA road by lessening the waiting time to exit the site, but it would also degrade the performance of Danville Boulevard. Cars that would normally turn left Appeal (County File # €39£8163) Board of Supervisors otem€er 14, 1999 Page 5 out of the YMCA road (76 are expected to tura lett and travel to the south in the PM peak hour) would be forced to tura right. Some would continue north on DanvilleBoulevard to Stone Valley Road before entering the southbound and s 0, but most would make a U-turn t or before H r me Avenue and travel south on Danville Boulevard. -tura € ove ent at Hemme Avenue would lower the performance of that intersection and lessen the capacity of the ears that can make a lett tura on the proposed green arrow. U-turn movements on Danville Boulevard before Hemme Avenue could be a safety problem. It the "Tight-in, right-out" option were considered, it mould need to apply for the entire day. Enforcement would be by a channeling median or raised bars that would physically prevent the left turn movement. Having the restriction only for certain hours would preclude the use of these physical measures. Without these physical measures, enforcement would be extremely difficult. "Traffic Information: The Levels of Service (LOS) used in the summary tables below are quantitative descriptions of the intersection operation. The ratings at A through F describe trate delay and congestion. A, LOS o "A" represents tree flowing conditions with little or no delay. A LOS of"F' describes jammed conditions with excessive delays. F. ghat is the impact on the intersection of Danville Boulevard and Hemme Avenue with: I, ExistingConditions? . Existing Conditions + Emerald Homes? 3. Existing Conditions + Emerald Homes + YMCA? . Existing Conditions + Emerald Homes + homes on the YMCA site? Emerald Homes commissioned a trait capacity study by Abrams Associates to study this intersection. This study, dated August 31, 1999, analyzed both the AM and PM pear lours. The school PM peak (2;30 to 3;30 M) was analyzed by Abrams in a drat July 1999 report. Both reports indicated that there was a negligible effect on this intersection with the addition of trait from any of these alternatives. The results are summarized below: L 0 S t s East. . Exist. _ Ddst. D a n v t I t e ; Conditions Emerald Emerald Emend+ Boulevard & G Subdivision Subdivision Haemes €n Hemme Avenue YTMC.A i YMCA Site Case umber: t 2 3 4 AM Peak C C C C School PM Peak A. A. A A PM Pea !A A A A G. What is the impact on Danville Boulevard South of Emerald Homes / YMCA with.- I. Existing Conditions? 2. Existing Conditions + Emerald Homes? 3. Existing Conditions + YMCA? 4. Existing Conditions + Emerald Hames + Domes on YMCA site? Appeal (County File SD9 816.x) Board of Supervisors September 14, 1,999 Page The YMCA commissioned a traffic study by TJKM transportation consultants{ which analyzed case I (existing conditions) and case 3 (existing conditions pias YMCA) only. This study, dated June 18; 1999, covered both the intersection of Danville Boulevard with Camille Avenue and Danville Boulevard with El Cerro Boulevard. For case 2 (Existing Conditions + Emerald Homes) and case 4 (Existing Conditions + Emerald Homes + homes ars YMCA property) staff interpolated the impacts. The results are summarized below; L t €sting Exist. exist. Exist. D n v i i e € Conditions Emerald Emerald + Boulevard & Subdivision # Homes on Camille YMCA Site � Case number: 1 2 3 4 SchoolPeak A A A A PM Peak A A A A LOS at Denville -xtstt lsts 4 gist.- + Exist. + Boulevard & Conditions Emerald YMCA Emerald + El Cerro Blvd. Subdivision Homes o YM Site 1 Case number-, 1. 2 3 4 SchoolPeak A A A A PM Peak A A A A K What is the impact on intersection of Danville Boulevard and Stone Malley Road with: I. Existing Conditions? . Existing Conditions + Emerald Acmes? 3. Existing Conditions + Emerald Homes + YMCA? . Existing Conditions + Emerald Homes + homes on YMCA site? Emerald Homes commissioned e traffic capacity study by Abrams Associates to study this intersection. This study, dated August 31, 1999, used traffic counts from March 1999, and indicated that there was a negligible effect on this intersection with the addition of traffic from any of these alternatives. The results are summarized below. LOS at Danville Existing Exist. Exist. t Exist. 4- Boulevard Stone Conditions Emerald. Emerald Emerald+ Valley Rod Subdivision Subdivision Homes on Y-MI CA SCA Site LC�9 �b e n AMT Peak E B B B PM Peak C C C C appeal (County Re #SD9 163) Board of Supervisors September 14, 1399 Page 7 Ix Accident data in the vicinity: There.were 15 reported accidents on Danville Boulevard between Hemme Avenue and l aeanne Drive from 1994 to the present. Eight of the 15 involved left turn movements from Danville Boulevard onto Hemme Avenue. Proposed signal modifications at this intersection will add a left turn arrow, and should improve the safety of this intersection. The accident data is summarized below, Year: Location.- Accident Type: Danville Boulevard at. 994 Hemme Avenue Left turn Hemme Avenue Left turn 524' N of Raeanne NIS rearend 995 Hee Avenue Left tura Hernme Avenue Left turn Hemme Avenue SIB rearend —f9- Hernme Avenue Left turn Hernme Avenue Left turn Hemme Avenue Ran off road 1997 Hernme Avenue Left turn 1eme Avenue Ran off road — .. -9 9 8 barn a Avenue Left turn 51' of H rnme S/B r arerld Woodhaven Court / rear nd 999 Hernme Avenue S/B rearend JK How is the sight distance from all proposed access points? Std has investigated the sight distance from the proposed access points found it to be acceptable. At this location, Danville Boulevard has a design speed of 45 mph, which requires a stopping sight distance of 360 feet. K. What is being done to relieve school congestion on Hernme Avenue? The public`Forks Department is working to lessen the backups that occur in the morning peak hour€ n Hernme Avenue and at the intersection of Danville Boulevard and Hemme Avenues 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 tura right from southbound Danville Boulevard onto Hernme Avenue, The signal will be modified to provide a left turn green arrow while prohibiting right tura on red. The signal tiring will also be modified to allow a greater amount of green time for vehicles exiting Hernme Avenue, 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 oft their children at the school. The Public 'works Department is also recommending to the school that they modify their parking lot to improve access. These discussions with the school are ongoing. These measures will help reduce the backup of cars waiting to turn left onto Herm° Avenue in the AM peak hour. Appeal (County File #SD988163) Board of SupeMsors September 14, 1999 Page L. low is emergency access handled on Danville Boulevard during congested tires` Emergency access during periods of congestion is achieved by the use of sirens and red light activation. Vehicles are required by law to pull over to the right side of the roadway to allow emergency vehicles to pass. Danville Boulevard has bike lanes and wide shoulders, which allow ample room for cars to pull off. Me Is the creek structure setback lire shown on the tentative map adequate to approve this subdivision? Staff has reviewed the creek structure setback lire as shown on the Vesting Tentative Map and believes it is acceptable for consideration of this subdivision. The setback lire is based on the cross sections provided by the developer's engineer, who performed a topographic survey of the creek bank. Creek bark topography can charge with winter storms, however, and staff recommends that an additional topographic survey be performed just prig to filing the Final leap to incorporate any of these possible changes, The more accurate creek structure setback line will their be based on this updated surrey, and will be shown on the Final Map. Staff does not see the need for ars additional topographic creek bark survey until that time. N. 'where is the location of the proposed creek trail? is It compatible with this proposed subdivision? The San Ramon Creek Greenbelt and parkway Study (June 1994); shows the cre ksid tall on the east side of Sari Ramon Creek in this location. This would pass through the YMCA!facility proposed on the east side of the creek, Subdivision 8163 is located on the west side of San Ramon Creek, and does not conflict with the proposed cre kside trail. . is CEQA adequate? I s I�Xi tiro +Emerald ubdivi in + Homes Y1 & ����rt� The YMCA property is designated single felly very low density (maximum of 0.9 units/net acre) and is zoned R-20, It is approximately 1acres in size and may b developed with a maximum of g residential units. The proposed 6 lot subdivision together with the g houses on the YMCA property would generate 15 peak hour trips. The mitigated negative declaration prepared for the Emerald subdivision is adequate. . Existlr rnersld ubdlvisiori + ' A There is a negligible effect on traffic and LOS with the addition of traffic from the YMCA facility, 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. 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. The Emerald Homes project weld generate only six trips during PM 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 Appeal (County Re 8163) Board of Supervisors September 14, 1999 Page 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 threefold of 100 peak hour trips required under pleasure 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 four 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 YMCA facility, expansion of Monte Vista High School, and the recently approved Stone galley Oaks residential subdivision. The cumulative traffic analysis determined that evert when other nearby projects are factored, the incremental traffic impacts of this six unit project are very minor at the Danville Boulevard/Stone galley Road intersection. The Emerald Homes project plus other future nearby projects would not significantly affect the future re operations at this intersection and the LOS standards In the County General Plan can be maintained, However, it is likely that an Environmental Impact Deport would be required for the proposed YMCA project. Ps How much vacant residentially zoned land is to Alamo? The Community Development Department does not maintain an updated list of vacant residentially zoned properties. Staff will further research and present this information at the Board meeting. Qs Have varlances; been granted by the County in the vicinity? A number of setback variances have been granted in the past for properties in the €€ mediate vicinity. Generally, average lot width variances are required for all lots proposed with a owl-de-sac and lots that are unusually deep due to location of a creek in the rear as is the case with the proposed subdivision. Average lot width variances were granted for SD5385 ( emlineCourt). The property was zoned R-20 at the time the variances were granted. The subdivision on Adrienne Drive (to the south of g8 53) was approved by the County in May 1957 and the property was zoned -A (transitional residential agricultural district). The 1 -A zone required a minimum lot size of one-half acre with a minimum width of 1feet, Sideyard setback and fret setback variances were approved for a number of lots as part of the subdivision approval. The R-20 zone replaced the -A zone countywide in December 1957. The R-20 zone requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 sq. ft. and an average lot width of 120 feet. R. What recreational activities are available in Alamo? Las Trampas Regional Wilderness Area flap Magee Ranch Park, fit. Diablo State Park, and Iron horse Frail are available to Alamo residents in close proximity. In addition neighborhood parks and private recreational facilities such as Uvoma Park, Oakhill Park, and Round bill Golf and Country Club are available to Alamo residents. ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.5 September 1 4, 1 999, agenda On July 20, 1999, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date, the hearing on the appeal by DeBolt engineering (Applicant) and Emerald SVLT LLC (Owner), f om the decision of the San Ranlon 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 Let#5 ('1 10 Feet requested),where a minimum of 120 feet is required(County File#SD98-8163). The property is located at 11 6 Danville blvd., Alamo area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department Director, presented the staff report and recommendations. Mr. Barry advised that this subdivision and the prospective YMCA issues are separate proposals. Aruna Bhat, Community Development Department,was also present. Heather Ballenger,Public Works Department, discussed the access points of the subdivision,the compatibility of the homes in the surrounding area, and the possibility of design restrictions. .the Board discussed the matter, The public hearing was opened, and the following people presented comments: Mark Armstrong, Esq., Attorney for applicants and owners; Join Henderson,Alamo Improvement Association, 2445 Soutliview.Drive, Alanno; Thom Martin, San Ramon'Malley YMCA, 1029 La Gonda Way,Danville; Bradley Paulsey, 21 Gurney Lase, Alaimo; Robert Cutbirth, 140 Daniel Drive, Alamo; Jen Kon p, 1200 Danville Blvd.,Alamo; Tin's Lane, Esq., Attorney for Ms. Clancy, 545 La Gonda flay,Danville; Wendy Lombardi, 21 Gary flay, Alamo. Armstrong rebuttal. The public hearing was closed and the Board continued to discuss the issues. Supervisor Gerber proposed that the=umber of lots be reduced from d to 5,whien would rewire the Applicant to reconfigure that and come back,it would also eliminate some of the need, as understood from staff for variances. She also suggested increasing the width of the easement 20 to 25 feet, and since a lot is beim eliminated,it sought to be able to be done,it would allow some additional area to buffer that if there ewer is an easement all the way through the property. That would give a voider area and.would allow for additional buffering which spears to some of the concerns of some of the neighbors. It might also create room for a right hand turn lame cunning out of the area which might Delp the traffic,that is a possibility. She suggested that single story homes be required, with a maximum.of 24 feet on whose lots where the rear yards back up to Danville Boulevard, She noted that in the last hearing, and in the regional Planning Commission's report,they were concerned about what it would loop life from.Danville Boulevard, the houses that had their backs toward the Boulevard. She expressed the thought that changing to single story hones with a maximum of 24 feet would help that situation. She stated that the property in bacok will be considered later with a lot more information. Supervisor—lkema requested clarification of the motion, and Supervisor Gerber responded,then noted that they will be doing an EIR on the YMCA project. Supervisor Canciamilla questioned whether the EIR request was part of this mesion., and Supervisor Gerber stated it was not,but it was an important par.other thimking about what to do with this matter. 1 Dennis Bey questioned through the Chair, if the maker of the motion would consider a slight modification, and said he believed that the way it was stated in the motion,was that the easement would be increased 20 to 25 feet, if it could be made to provide a structure setback of 20 to 25 beet from the south property lire of the Clancy's lot,they the staff doesn't need to get into property exchanges and so forth, and easements and what not... apeivisor Gerber stated that was correct, and was the more appropriate technical language. Secondly, Mr. Barry advised, that if diere were going to be restrictions put on the height and stories, that it be required to have a deed notification and a note on the map for subsequent buyers that they are bound by those, as well as the subdivider, The motion could be phrased in the form of a Declaration of Intent and direction be given to staff to came back with findings and final conditions along with the-modified map on October 12, 1999. upervisor Gerber clarified for the pablic's nderstanding, that she understood that essentially these changes that the Board would be adopting for this project would be done by the Applicant...o them reap. Demnis Berry responded yes,they would prepare the reap and they would work with staff on the preparation of the findings for the Board that would support the decision if that should be the decision., and then bring the reap along with the findings back to the Board on October 12, 1.999, for consideration on the short discussion calendar. Supervisor Gerber agreed with.Mr. Barry and moved the item. Supervisor Gioia seconded the inotion. The Chair called for further discussion,there being none, the vote was unanimous and the Board took the following action. CLOSED the public hearing; DECLARED the Board's intent to approve the findings,final conditions,and map as modified on the appeal by Debolt Engineering(Applicant) and Emerald SVLT LIC (Owner); and.DIRECTED Community Development Department staff to prepare the appropriate documentation entation fog°Board consideration on October 12, 1999. 2