|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Danville Planning Commission is poised to consider Tuesday whether to approve a proposed 150-unit apartment complex on Diablo Road just outside downtown.
The proposal from property owner Danville Office Partners, LLC calls for three separate apartment buildings at three stories tall on a 3.68-acre site with a multifamily residential land-use designation at 373-383 Diablo Road, adjacent to the Interstate 680 southbound on-ramp just west of the freeway.
The commissioners’ debate Tuesday night follows their hearing over a month ago during which they listened to about 30 minutes of public comment, with a majority of the citizen speakers criticizing the development proposal and raising concerns about issues such as increased traffic, school impact, public safety, parking, emergency access, complex size and tree removal.
Following another an hour of discussion at the dais during that Jan. 17 meeting, the commission put a decision on hold and asked town planning staff to research more details on traffic, tree removal and affordable housing related to the project.
Town officials have completed that follow-up research and again recommend approval of the apartment complex, but with one change to a previously proposed condition of approval, according to Kevin Gailey, the town’s chief of planning.
In his latest staff report, Gailey said further review of the project’s traffic impact analysis has concluded a traffic signal is not justified for the western driveway at Diablo Road.
However, town staff suggests a new condition requiring the developer to put in “KEEP CLEAR” signage and pavement markings on Diablo Road at the complex’s two driveways to help mitigate traffic concerns, according to Gailey.
Regarding the commission’s other talking points, Gailey recommends no new conditions related to tree removal or affordable housing.
He noted that the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conversation District likely would not change its position related to existing and future tree planting along the project’s interface with the north side of San Ramon Creek.
“It would be prudent to assume their position will not change and that they will require all non-sanctioned trees to be removed within their easement and that they will limit replacement trees to species and locations that are consistent with their planting standards,” Gailey wrote.
On affordable housing, he said, “It has been determined that the town cannot impose a condition on the Danville Office Partners, LLC project that would give preference to potential tenants who live or work in Danville or who qualify as senior households.”
As part of its consideration process, the commission will consider the property owner’s requests for a density bonus to allow for more housing units than permitted in the zoning district and an exception for a 37-foot-tall building, whereas town regulations limit the maximum height to 35 feet.
As proposed, the apartments would not sit right along Diablo Road, instead being set back behind roadside buildings with tenants such as Heritage Bank of Commerce and American Packaging Capital. The site currently contains two-story office buildings from the 1970s that would be torn down to accommodate the apartment complex.
Parking would be a combination of ground-level and basement parking.
The property was one of two in the town to secure a new multifamily land-use designation through the 2030 General Plan approval in recognition of the regional housing needs allocation shortfall identified in the town’s 2007-14 Housing Element, according to Gailey.
He also noted there is a private covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) affecting the project property and two neighboring parcels — the Heritage Bank and Cabrita Trust properties — that prohibits residential uses on any of the three parcels, but that agreement would not impact the town’s decision-making on the apartment complex proposal.
The Planning Commission meeting is scheduled to start at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday inside the Town Meeting Hall at 201 Front St. in downtown Danville. The commissioners would have the final say on the project, unless someone appeals their decision to the Danville Town Council.
Please, do not go forward with this apartment complex.
We have enough housing and more than enough traffic.
We moved here to get away from the congestion.
We will elect our city officials that respect and represent the wishes of the citizens.
We citizens are wasting our time going to these so called public comment meetings. Their idea of listening to us is to just put signage on the pavement saying KEEP CLEAR and this is how they propose mitigating traffic for 900 car trips a day out of that complex. Do they even care about the impact on local schools? The planning commission and the town council are in bed with the developers. They are bought and paid for. Need to find qualified candidates to throw the bums out of office. They are destroying our town one development at a time. It looks like we are competing with San Ramon who is trying to be like Dublin in maximizing high density housing. Just look at the 2 5 story 200 unit San Ramon complexes coming to San Ramon Valley Blvd in San Ramon. Don’t think that’s not going to impact our traffic? 680 will be lined with these monstrosities from Danville to Dublin and on to Pleasanton before we know it.
Narrow valley, jammed roadways with jammed freeway with cars from freeway soon to be on surface roads, and NOW MORE PROPOSED HOUSING.
WHEN does it end?
When the impact is so great that log jams are everywhere????
Look at the Peninsula, its jammed to the gills and people cant move due to traffic jams!!
You want that here in narrow valley????
The people who make the decision have little life time left and so what do they care what they leave behind.
Think deeply at the massive growing problems of more people, jammed schooling LESSENING THE QUALITY OF SCHOOL SYSTEM THEN BLAME TEACHERS, more cars, more time getting from point to point if possible.
Please stop this development! Does our town government know no-one wants this?
Yes please stop this project. Danville does not need a huge apartment complex… it does not mix with the character of the town. I’d rather see retail at those locations not high-density housing.
Danville city leaders, please say no to this.
I always feel and perhaps I should not that once something gets this far and the dollars involved it is a decided issue. The formality of allowing citizen input looks good but usually accomplishes little. Jaded maybe?
At this point there are no consequences for this type of behavior of our governmental officials. Besides expressing our opinions, perhaps its time to take up “anti-Trump” type protests. March in the streets to bring traffic to a halt… apparently traffic is not important to our officials… we will certainly see how then and police department react to civil disobedience when it is opposition to the officials’ desires. Maybe we boycott the 4th of July parade due to officials not responding to the citizens needs and desires. As my father says… follow the money, who is really benefiting from this development?
I have been a resident here since the 80’s and before that Alamo since the mid-50’s. Danville will be turned into a city with congestion. We already see backups on Danville Blvd., and with this development it will spread to Diablo Rd. We will no longer represent our nomenclature “Town of Danville.” Stop this development before it is too late.
Why would we even consider this proposal? I have not heard one person say oh thank goodness!! More people more traffic. Yahoo! Our town council should be listening..
I haven’t seen anyone address the elephant in the room: the property owner has certain rights to develop the property in conformance with the zoning and land use.
Will there be additional children at schools? Yes. Can the Town consider that as a factor? No – California forbids towns from doing so.
There may well be legitimate reasons to object to the project, but you have to start from the position that all landowners have certain rights, then address why those rights cannot or should not be exercised.
Also, concerns about zoning and land use designations need to be raised to the town council when they do the general plan update, which happened three or so years ago. If you have concerns about it, go to a meeting and explain why the council should revisit the issue.
Things that don’t help:
Anonymous complaints on a website that is not part of the official record of the project.
Thinly veiled ad hom attacks on council members and planning commissioners – they are all volunteers and don’t get anything out of this other than civic service.
Plain and simple. There is no more room in our schools. More housing means you will need to build more schools. Oh wait, there is no more room for schools either.
Our little town is perfect just the way it is. Please leave it that way.
My family has lived in Danville since 1957. The allure was a small town atmosphere and the beauty of the surrounding hills and valley. We’ve seen a lot of growth in this time.
I would prefer not to see anymore. This project at this location is insane. We don’t need this many people crowded into a small area basically in the center of town.
It’s TIME TO STOP!
@ HUH? You say “concerns about zoning and land use designations need to be raised to the town council when they do the general plan update, which happened three or so years ago. If you have concerns about it, go to a meeting and explain why the council should revisit the issue.”
Guess you weren’t there, Huh. The concerns were raised and IGNORED.The Council changed the land use designation from office to high-density.
Too many voters in Danville ignore the issues and vote the developer lackeys back in. Sadly, no one opposed the incumbent council members and Lisa Blackwell, their hand-picked successor to Mike Doyle, in the 2016 election. Danville residents got 4 more years of non-represention, which is what they let happen.
Has any investigation been done to find out why these types of decisions are made? From what I see and hear, citizens in general are not in favor of the plan and yet the developer and council are… what benefit is the council deriving, it is certainly not the approval from the citizens, so it must be something else.
@truth-teller:
If you recall from the general plan update, the town was required by the state to designate certain areas for potential low income housing. They studied a variety of properties, eliminated many, and designated the bare minimum number of acres to avoid being exposure to lawsuits from the state.
There are plent of real, legitimate concerns. I, too, share the concerns of many that schools will be overcrowded. But issues of the amount of low density housing/regional housing needs allocations needs to be addressed to ABAG, school crowding needs to be addressed to the school board, and land use designations/zoning decisions long since passed.
There are plenty of real things that can be addressed, such as how to address the real, unavoidable traffic impact, removal of town protected trees, etc. Go to the meeting or send an email, make proposals, ask for the town to consider certain, specific issues further.
The council and planning commission are a bunch of volunteers who live in Danville, and spend a lot of time trying to make the best decision they can. Help them with constructive suggestions and real actions that can be studied or taken.
DB, you say “At this point there are no consequences for this type of behavior of our governmental officials.” Are you registered to vote? Remember which Council member voted for this project and vote them out of office next time they come up for re-election. This project is the consequence of having a very pro-development counsel so vote them all out. See http://www.danville.ca.gov/content.aspx?id=611 for their electoral terms. Our Town Council appoints the members of the Planning Commission: http://www.danville.ca.gov/Government/Commissions-and-Committees/Planning-Commission/ . Learn how our local government works and get involved.
We desperately need multi-family housing. This is a walkable location near our city core and seems to make great sense. I would love to give up my SFR and move downtown as my senior years approach. I also wish my kids my kids could stay in the community. With such a limited supply of small housing units, there is no where to go but out of town. I urge the City to approve this project.
I read that San Ramon is increasing their Police Dept. staffing. This is to deal with the increase in their population from future apartments. I sure hope that Danville will be doing the same. There has been know proactive talk from our town officials about increasing the size of the Police Dept. If the town officials are serious about adding all these apartments, then they better get serious about the increase in police activity coming our way.
John, appreciate your comments… yes I’m registered voter and did not vote for incumbents to remain in office in nearly all positions.
Jackie, I am glad to see your support for the multi-family project. I am not in favor of the project, but appreciate that there are folks supporting the effort. With this seemingly be passed, I would expect to see much greater support here.
Regards all
I have to drive down Diablo from Green Valley everyday, this would add even more traffic along this route where people are trying to get to Los Cerros, Vista Grande, Green Valley Elementary, Monte Vista HS, etc. Traffic through our area is getting crazy, just because these land owners want to make a huge profit off this project, isn’t a good reason to allow it, when the entire community says no.
And if it was allowed, the city can’t even impose restrictions on making the units availability to people working in the area? That would seem to defeat the whole point of allowing high density housing like this. If you were to put this in, the ONLY purpose to allow it would be to provide low income housing so employees in the area don’t have to commute from an hour away.
As it stands right now, this proposal is terrible for the community, so it’s no wonder no one supports it.
The traffic in this area is congested enough, especially during commuting and school hours. we certainly have enough people around here who think they are above the traffic laws. Can you just imagine how it would be if you build this multifamily building, and we have people that are not quite used to our community style of living? This is a quiet town, and we pay for it, dearly. If we wanted a low income multifamily apartment building, it would have been built a long time ago, and I as a concerned citizen, would have moved in to SF. Thank you for letting us have a voice.