HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01181994 - H.6 H. 6
�TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
HARVEY BRAGDON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: January 18, 1994
SUBJECT: MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 7840 IN THE
PACHECO AREA.
Specific Request(s)or Recommendation(s)&Background&Justification
I. Recommended Action:
1. MODIFY Conditions of Approval, development plan, and tentative map plans as outlined in the
following Exhibit.
2. APPROVE the closure of Elder Drive and DIRECT the Public Works Director to locate the
closure as far south as possible on the existing road alignment without sacrificing safety, and
report his findings back to the Board.
3. APPROVE the installation of a three way stop at the intersection of Deodar Drive and First
Avenue South.
4. DIRECT the Public Works Director to investigate the need for stop signs at various intersections
in the vicinity of the former Pacheco school site and report his findings back to the Board.
II. Financial Impact:
None for the County.
III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background:
These changes were coordinated between Public Works and Community Development
Department staffs and both concur in these recommendations.
Subdivision 7840 is an. infill project on the old Pacheco School site. The property is bounded by
Center Avenue, Second Avenue South, Deodar Drive, and Elder Drive. The existing vertical
alignments of Elder Drive and Deodar Drive are substandard. Deodar Drive and Elder Drive were
constructed many years ago and do not meet today's design standards. The proposed project
of 71 dwelling units will have homes that front along Deodar Drive, Elder Drive and Second
Avenue South. As a result, the roads are required to be brought up to today's standards.
Continued on attachment: x yes SIGNATURE: ^4
RECOMMENDATION OF N ADMINISTRATOR
RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON: January 18 , 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I I , I I
AYES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Contact: R. Mitch Avalon (510) 313-2235
RMA\kd\cl
c:BO\BO18c.t1
Orig. Div.: PW(Engineering Services)
cc: County Administrator
Auditor-Controller
V. Alexeeff, GMEDA
Director, Community Development I hereby Building Inspection, Grading Division y certify that this is a true and correct
Public Works copy of an action taken and entered on the
Transportation Engineering minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the
Accounting, R. Gilchrist date shown
Traffic Engineering ATTESTED:
Braddock & Loggan PHIL BAT ELOR, erk of the Board
Wally Wiggs, Cfiair PMAC
of ervis and Co ty dministrator
By o
Deputy
MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 7840
January 18, 1994
Page Two
Late in November of 1993, the developer's engineers submitted their final design for
reconstructing Elder Drive and Deodar Drive. At that time, it was recognized there would be
a tremendous impact to the surrounding properties if the two roads were to be reconstructed
to satisfy the design speed required by the conditions of approval. In the ensuing weeks, the
developer, their engineers, and our staff, worked on many different alternatives to resolve the
problem.
The alternatives, and the issues associated with each of the alternatives, for Elder Drive and
Deodar Drive are as follows:
1. Elder Drive Alternatives
a. Reconstruct Elder Drive per the conditions of approval at a 30 mile per hour
design speed.
b. Construct Elder Drive to a reduced design speed of 25 miles per hour.
c. Close Elder Drive with a barrier at the top of the hill.
Discussion
The conditions of approval require Elder Drive to be constructed for a 30 mile
per hour design speed. Collector roads are required to have a 30 mile per hour
design speed. Elder Drive, however, is not a collector road in the classic sense,
since it does not extend beyond Center Avenue or Second Avenue South. The
design on Elder Drive, therefore, could be reduced to 25 miles per hour. If Elder
Drive is to be a through street, the Ordinance Code requires that the pavement
width must be 36 feet. If Elder Drive is not a through street, the pavement width
can be reduced to 32 feet and the existing road between Center Avenue and the
top of the hill at the driveway to the Centerpointe condominiums can remain
intact. To satisfy a design speed of 30 miles per hour, Elder Drive would have to
be lowered seven feet at the driveway to the Centerpointe condominiums. Even
if Elder Drive is reconstructed to a reduced design speed of 25 mile per hour, the
top of the hill at the driveway to the condominiums would still have to be lowered
by approximately five feet.
Issues Associated with Elder Drive Alternatives
Alternative A. Reconstruct Elder Drive per the conditions of approval (30 mile per hour
design speed)
*Reconstruct Elder Drive and lower the hill by over seven feet
*Reconstruct the existing curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping along the
Centerpointe condominiums
*Reconstruct the access, parking and landscaping within the Centerpointe
condominiums
*Disrupt access to the Centerpointe condominium during reconstruction of Elder
Drive.
e Construct retaining walls along the frontage of the house immediately south of
the Centerpointe condominiums
*Reconstruct the driveways to the houses south of the Centerpointe
condominiums
*Increase circulation in the area
*Increase through traffic on Elder Drive
*Potentially disrupt circulation patterns because of the change in the road network
Alternative B. Reconstruct Elder Drive to a reduced design speed of 25 miles per hour
*Same issues as in alternative A above except the impacts to the Centerpointe
condominiums and the properties on the west side of Elder Drive are reduced.
Elder Drive will still have to be lowered 5 feet at the driveway to the Centerpointe
Condominiums
Alternative C. Close Elder Drive with a barrier at the top of the hill
*No change to the current status of Elder Drive as a dead end road
*No impact to the driveway and access to the Centerpointe condominiums
*No need to reconstruct curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping on Elder Drive
along the Centerpointe condominiums
*Eliminates through traffic on Elder Drive
*Allows emergency access on Elder Drive between Center Avenue and Second
Avenue South
*Does not disrupt circulation patterns in the area, since there is no change to the
road network
*Reduces potential general circulation in the area
*Existin homes on Elder Drive (three homes) would have to drive out to Second
Avenue South instead of Center Avenue
MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 7840
January 18, 1994
Page Three
2. Deodar Drive Alternatives
a. Reconstruct Deodar Drive per the conditions of approval at a design speed
of 30 miles per hour.
b. Close Deodar Drive with a cul de sac located at Second Avenue South.
C. Reconstruct Deodar Drive to a reduced design speed of 25 mileser hour
provided the intersection of Deodar Drive and First Avenue South is
improved and a three way stop is installed, and Deodar Drive is widened
to 36 feet of pavement.
d. Close Deodar Drive with a cul de sac at Center Avenue.
Discussion
Deodar Drive is a collector road in the classic sense, since it is the extension of
Camelback Road and connects the Pacheco area with shoppping in Pleasant Hill
and the major arterials of Center Avenue and ChilpancingopTarkway: However,
constructing Deodar Drive to a 30 mile per hour design speed will result in
steeper driveways for the existing homes on the east side of the street. Steep
driveways will reduce the safety for the residents backing out of their driveways.
Our concerns on Deodar Drive relate to the density of dwelling units fronting on
the street. Deodar Drive will have homes fronting on both sides of the street
which results in conflicts with cars backing out of their driveways onto the road.
Conflicts between cars translate into potential traffic accidents. This is the reason
why arterials and major collectors are generally designed to have no homes
fronting along the roacl. Another safety concern we have is the width of Deodar
Drive. -The proposed width is 32 feet. If the design speed is to be reduced to 25
miles per hour, then the pavement width should be widened to 36 feet to provide
more maneuvering room for the turning movements in and out of the driveways.
It should be noted that if Deodar Drive is to be left open and reduced to a 25
mile per hour design speed then Elder Drive must be closed in order to gain the
four feet width needed on hieodar Drive.
Issues Associated with Deodar Drive Alternatives
Alternative A. Reconstruct Deodar Drive per the conditions of approval (30 mile per
hour design'speed)
@Reconstruct Deodar Drive by lowering the hill approximately three feet and
raising the low section by First Avenue South by approximately three feet
*Reconstruct driveways to existing homes on the east side of Deodar Drive.
@Increase safety on Deodar Drive
@No change to the circulation patterns in the area, except for First Avenue South
@Construct retaining walls along front yards of existing homes on east side of
Deodar Drive
@Maintains integrity of the circulation element
@Requires closure of First Avenue South
Alternative B. Close Deodar Drive with a cul de sac located at Second Avenue South
@Directs project traffic to Center Avenue
@ Changes circulationatterns in the area
@Diverts traffic onto First Avenue South, C Street,Blackwood Drive, Flame Drive
and Second Avenue South.
@Increases safety for homes on Deodar Drive
*Eliminates through traffic on Deodar Drive
@ Creates more of a neighborhood feel for the residents of Deodar Drive
*Diverts traffic to the intersection of Contra Costa Boulevard and Second Avenue
South which is congested and un-signalized
@Re uires a general plan amendment to remove Deodar Drive from the
circulation element
@Reduces traffic speeds on Deodar Drive
@Impacts access to two homes at the south end of Deodar Drive
@Results in retaining walls, reduced front yards and reduced rearyards for lots 1-5
@Reduces design speed of Deodar Drive between First Avenue South and the cul
de sac to 20 miles per hour
Alternative C. Reconstruct Deodar Drive to a reduced design speed of 25 miles per
hour, provided a three way stop is installed at Deodar Drive and First Avenue South and
the pavement is widened to 36 feet
*Reduced impact to existing properties on the east side of Deodar Drive, as
compared with alternative A above
@No change to the circulation patterns in the area, except for a possible minor
diversion created by the stop sign
@Maintains integrity of the circulation element
MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 7840
January 18, 1994
Page Four
Alternative D. Close Deodar Drive with a cul de sac at Center Avenue
sEliminates through traffic on Deodar Drive
*Creates more of a neighborhood feel for the residents on Deodar Drive
•Increases safety for the homes fronting on Deodar Drive
•Reduces traffic speeds on Deodar Drive
*Changes the circulation pattern in the area
*Diverts traffic onto C Street,First Avenue South,Blackwood Drive,Flame Drive
and Second Avenue South
•Diverts traffic to the intersection of Contra Costa Boulevard and Second Avenue
South which is congested and unsignalized
•Re uires a general plan amendment to remove Deodar Drive from the
circulation element of the general plan
Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council
A meeting with the neighborhood residents was held at Supervisor Sunne McPeak's office
on January 14, 1994. The above alternatives were discussed and refined. On January
17, 1994, the Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council met to discuss all of the alternatives
for Elder Drive and Deodar Drive. After taking public testimony, the Pacheco Municipal
Advisory Council voted to keep both Elder Drive and Deodar Drive as through streets
and to construct both streets as required by the conditions of approval.
SUMMARY
Reconstructing Elder Drive to a design speed of 30 miles per hour or 25 miles per hour
would have a tremendous impact on the existing properties on the west side of Elder
Drive. To reconstruct the road as recommended by the Pacheco Municipal Advisory
Council would result in lowering the hill seven feet at the entrance to the 36 unit
Centerpointe condominiums. The driveway at Elder Drive is their only access. In
addition, Elder Drive is currently not a through street so there would be no change to the
driving patterns in the neighborhood if the road were closed, except for the two existing
homes south of the Centerpointe condominiums.
Reconstructing Deodar Drive to a 30 mile per hour design speed would impact the
existing homes on the east side of Deodar Drive by steepening the driveways. This would
alsorequire the closure of First Avenue South because of the change in grade at the
intersection with Deodar Drive. The biggest issue with closing Deodar Drive is the
diversion of the traffic to the surrounding local streets, and the diversion of traffic to the
intersection of Second Avenue South and Contra Costa Boulevard,which is a congested
unsignalized intersection. A signal at the intersection of Second Avenue South and
Contra Costa Boulevard would help to reduce the diversion of traffic heading to the
north and east, however, it may be several years before a signal is installed.
After considering the above, staff recommends the following:
I. Elder Drive
Staff recommends not providing a through connection on Elder Drive by installing
a barrier at the crest of the hill, just south of the driveway to the Centerpointe
condominiums for the following reasons:
a) Elder Drive currently is not a through road so there would be no change to
the circulation patterns in the area.
b) The tremendous impact to the existing properties on the west side of the road
is eliminated.
c) The road width can be reduced by 4 feet, which is needed on Deodar Drive.
II. Deodar Drive
Staff recommends granting an exception to the Ordinance Code requirement for
a design speed on a collector road by allowing a design speed of 25 miles per hour
for the following reasons:
a) Constructing the road to a 30 mile per hour design speed would result in
steeper driveways for the homes fronting on Deodar Drive which would reduce
the safety of accessing the homes from the street and in backing out from the
homes to the street.
b) The only other alternatives identified involved closing Deodar Drive. This
would result in two kinds of diverted traffic; 1) traffic diverted to local
neighborhood streets that have an inadequate vertical alignment or inadequate
MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 7840
January 18, 1994
Page Five
pavement width to handle the increased traffic, and 2) traffic diverted to the
intersection of Second Avenue South and Contra Costa Boulevard, which is
currently congested and unsignalized.
The following mitigations are recommended to justify the granting of an exception:
a) Improving the intersection of Deodar Drive and First Avenue South and
installing a three way stop at the intersection. This will stop the flow of traffic on
Deodar Drive and should prevent traffic speeds from exceeding the design speed.
b) Widening the pavement on Deodar Drive to 36 feet. This can be
accomplished by reducing the width of Elder Drive, if Elder Drive is not a through
street. The widening on Deodar Drive will provide an additional safety margin
and maneuvering room for cars backing out of their driveways onto the street.
IV. Consequences of Negative Action:
The conditions of approval for Subdivision 7840 would not be modified and the subdivision
would be delayed, or would have to construct the improvements as required in the conditions
of approval, creating adverse impacts on the surrounding properties.
V. Exhibit-
A. MODIFY the following components of the development plan and tentative map:
1. MODIFY theplan to close Elder Drive provided an elevated planter area is
constructed across Elder Drive from curb to curb. The "planter" shall be located near
the crest of the vertical curve so it can be seen safely by vehicles on Elder Drive.
Concrete curbs shall be installed on each side of the "planter." The planter shall be
landscaped, and shall be included in the landscaping to be maintained by he Lighting and
LandscapinVistrict for this project. The "planter" shall be as wide as practicable.
There shala twelve-foot wide emergency access through the planter area if required
by the Fire District. This plan change shall be subject to the review of the Public Works
Department and Fire District; and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
Prior to filingg the mapp, apply to the Public Works Department for annexation to the
County. Landscaping District AD 1979-3 (LL-2) for future maintenance of landscaping
and irrigation facilities in the Elder Drive "planter" area and along Center Avenue.
Submit landscaping plans to the Public Works Department prior to filing the map and
pay the plan review and field inspection fees. All landscaping and irrigation facilities shall
e maintained by the applicant for ninety days following acceptance of the landscaping
improvements.
2. MODIFY the plan to allow one stair tread to encroach into the twenty foot by twenty
foot garage element at the house access to the garage.
B. MODIFY the following conditions of approval:
1. MODIFY Condition 2.A to allow for the following standards for setbacks and lot size:
a. Front Yard Setback
All lots shall have a front yard setback to provide a minimum of 17.5 feet
between the back of the sidewalk and the structures (garage).
b. Side Yard Setback
Lots on Center Avenue shall have a minimum side yard of four feet.
c. Rear Yard Setback
All lots shall have a minimum rear yard of ten feet.
d. Lot Size
The minimum lot size shall be 2600 square feet.
2. MODIFY Condition 17.A.1 to allow a four-foot six-inch sidewalk, width measured
from curb face, instead of a six-foot sidewalk on Center Avenue.
3. MODIFY Condition 17.A.1 to require the face of curb on the west side of Deodar
Drive to be 24 feet from the ultimate centerline of the road and to provide 36 feet of
pavement along the Deodar Drive frontage.
4. MODIFY Condition 17.A.5 to allow the storm drain, between lots 66 and 67, to be
split between the two parcels provided that an exclusive use easement is shown on the
final map for either lots 66 or 67 that precludes the installation of a fence within the
storm drain easement area.
5. MODIFY Condition 1733 to allow dedication of right of way on Elder Drive for fifty-
two feet instead of fifty-six feet.
6. MODIFY Condition 17.0 1) to allow for a twenty-five mile per hour design speed
on Second Avenue South; 2) to allow a twenty-five mile per Dour design speed on
Deodar Drive and 3) to allow the existing vertical alignment to remain on Elder Drive
from Center Avenue to the top of the crest. The new portion of Elder Drive, south of
the crest, shall be designed for twenty-five miles per hour.
MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 7840
January 18, 1994
Page Six
7. MODIFY Condition 17.G to specify intersection improvements and the installation
of a three way stop at the intersection of Deodar Drive and First Avenue South.
8. MODIFY Condition 17.K to acknowledge the existence of the heritage oak tree that
intrudes into the road section of Second Avenue South.
The following are the actual modified conditions of approval:
2.A
Guide for minimum yard standards shall be as follows:
Front: 16 feet from property line; 4S feet back of sidewalk.
Side: 4 feet; total 1 feet between builcf"irigs; side yards adjacent to a street, f >`fn
shall not be less than 6 feet.
..........:.....................................
dear:"4�5 € 6 feet.
W HL
17.A1
Constructing road improvements along the frontage of Center Avenue, Deodar Drive, Second
Avenue, and Elder Drive.
Constructing curb, 4-foot 6-inch sidewalk (width measured from curb face), necessary
longitudinal and traverse drainage and necessary pavement widening will satisfy this requirement
for the Deodar Drive, Second Avenue, and Elder Drive fronta es. e face of curb shall be 20
4 feet from the ultimate centerline of Deodar Drive and :>;`:'`:":eet::' ::':
€tat .: exlterme
f Second Avenue, and 48 feet from the ultimate centerline of Elder Drive
Construct curb, six ftixz -foot s -inch sidewalk (width measured from curb face), necessary
longitudinal and traverse drainage,and necessary pavement wideningwill satisfy this requirement
for the Center Avenue frontage. The face of the curb shall be 3feet from the centerline of
the road.
On all public roads with longitudinal slopes less than five percent, allublic pedestrian access
ways shall be designed in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap access This shall include all
driveway depressions as well as handicap ramps.
17.A.5
Installing, within a dedicated draina e..easement,.::any::portion of:thedrainage:system,which
conveys run-off from Public streets. � � ��t �����€ I� � ��' ;p��}}} �� �#��
1.
i}iri::i:4iiiii}}}i".:}}}::tiiiiriiiiYtiv.?}?}i}y.Y:.: iiiiiiiiiiiii ...i..........................................::.f.v..:..:.x.......::.�::.�:..:: ....... ...... ............R.. ....................... ..
.:r :::::.:::.::.:m.:::::.:rvldec.isan:;eu�^tv...e:: se::e .e.. t.::t .: h :: n:. ::1"t :: €1 :::1~ x.::p : :: la: h
:.::::P.....1 .. ...... .. ........::........ :.................. .. ....:::::::.:::::.....:::::::::::::::::t..:.::::::::.::..._. .. ................................ ..:................+ ::1 ..........::
...::.:::::..:..�..::. .:.r.:: .::::.::.a::.:...:.: r:.:::::.:::. . :.:.::::.:::::: :::::::::.::::::.:.::.::::::.t....:.a::.:::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::
o„s, :..: Qi'b .;th .; atla €c :;a ;ferts:a .; fir..uIurs.;ulhz .> h .; tarm:.:driri.; asment.:. e :
:::::::.P.....:::::::::::::::. .:.::::::::::: ::::::::::::::.. ::::::::.:::::::.;:.:::............:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.
17.13.3
On Elder Drive as required for the planned future width of 56 feet. '''"" ' ��' "..'
..........:....... .. ........ ' ' .... :::< x c t
:.::.<:.:................:.:...............................:..::.:::.:::::: ::.:::::P.::::::.:::::::::. ::::::.::::.::::..:::::..... :::::::::.:...................:::::...: ?
if :€:gin :..esti...>' :..... .... ,,.... :::.... :::..,.. :::. �;:.t...:::..... .....:::.... ::' :':<::<': «' `: » :
der::.;:::...:..n; excess r� hfi ofwa Alun iEh ,r e #fr nt ....wl#h.: e:; n :;bf.the final
:..............:.:::::::::::.:..... ......::::::::::::.:. '.::::::.::::: .:::::::::::F.::::J:.:::::::::::::::::......11.:::::::::::::.::::::.:::::::::::::::.::F:.
.....................................................................:........................
17.0
Provide for adequate sight distance along Deodar Drive, Elder Drive, s # i..
and Second Avenue for a design speed of 30 2 miles per hour in accorlancei with"ialtrans
standards. This require lowering. the crest..of the vertical curve on Deodar Drive. :T7.7-hi
..:(,... R:.. ♦ ...:::.:. :.}ii':. :•:•:Oiiiii.iiii:;iiiiii j;:ii:X!L.:i.ii:.:.iii:.{:.i:.i'.:ii.....iiiiY:4:'iiS};ii.is
Yi(
r .:a nr ': .: h.:cd: c .:. n:. a� :. s.: t:: xt::::es,
17.G
Install safety related improvements on Second Avenue, Deodar Drive, and Elder Drive
includin traffic si ns and channelization as a roved b the Public Works Department. 'h# °
iffi:................:...................Q..... ............... ........................................ ir. #.:. � u :::;.Scud >:t
end.....h
::�::�::::::,:>::::>:;
17.K
Along that portion of Second Avenue which lies between Deodar Drive and the Pacheco Creek
bridge, restripe the existing pavement to provide for at least a 12-foot lane width from the
northerly edge of pavement to the centerline of Second Avenue. Along the south side of Second
avenue provide::fr at least an 18-foot lane width from face of curb to the Second Avenue
....;...... :i:i:};:}'ii':;? ;ii{ii:f'•:iiiiiiiiiiiiii:�i'iii?::•:�::i
centerline sw dtat i t :.
.;...;:::.;:;:. ;::::::::'.:::'.;:.;:i:::.::.i:.i:.i:::.i:.i:.i:.i;:.:;:.: .;:: : .;".;:.;:.: ;:::; aitxe If these lane widths cannot
.......... ..r..... r............... .........
be provided by restriping t$is portion o Second Avenue; the.iap licant shall be required to
widen the existing pavement along the uncurbed side of the road to accomodate those lane
widths, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department.
If the centerline stripe on Second Avenue east of Deodar Drive is to be shifted to the south, the
applicant shall restripe Second Avenue west of Deodar Drive to align with the new striping.
Adequate transitions for a 30 mileper hour design speed shall be provided, subject to the review
and approval of the Public Works Department. Restriping along this portion of Second Avenue
shall not eliminate parking on the south side of Second Avenue.
ADDENDUM TO H.6
JANUARY 18, 1994
This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors for hearing on consideration of modifications to the project
conditions of approval and project plans for Rezoning Application 3004-RZ,
Final Development Plan 3009-93, and Subdivision 7840 developed by
Braddock and Logan (applicant) on the former Pacheco School site in the
Pacheco area, including the closure of Elder Drive and Deodar Drive in the
Pacheco area.
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, introduced the
item.
Mitch Avalon, Public Works Department, presented the staff report
and recommendations on the proposal which he advised were different from
the ones in the Board packet.
The public hearing was opened and the following persons presented
testimony:
Joe Raphel, P.O. Box 5300, Danville, representing Braddock and
Logan;
Wally Wiggs, 187 Freda Drive, Pacheco;
Pello Walker, 1239 Raymond Drive, Pacheco;
Donna J. Davidson, 1000 Temple Drive, Pacheco;
Jim McQuay, 2000 Almond Avenue, Concord;
Daphne Golliler, 98A Elder Drive, Pacheco;
Edith Hills, 301 First Avenue South, Pacheco;
Dan Hart, 137 Deodor Drive, Pacheco;
John D. Harvey, 114 C Street, Pacheco;
Jean Shoop, 118 Blackwood Drive, Pacheco;
Joyce Jones, 45 Rutherford Lane, Pacheco;
Peter Lujan, 104 Elder Drive, Pacheco;
Dixie Sauvain, 1237 Temple Drive, Pacheco;
Alberta Boeger, 711 Pacifica Avenue, Pacheco;
Karl Boeger, 113 C Street, Pacheco;
Michael Stratton, 110 Flame Drive, Pacheco;
Mr. Raphel spoke in rebuttal.
The public hearing was closed.
Supervisor McPeak moved approval of the recommendation of staff
dated January 13, 1994, with the modification that the barrier on Elder be
moved as far South as can be done to orient as much of the traffic to Center
without a compromise on safety and to look at the feasibility of some
additional stop sign systems to promote safety.
Supervisor Torlakson seconded the motion.