|
|
|
Uploaded: Friday, October 26, 2012, 3:35 PM
Updated: Sunday, October 28, 2012, 11:30 AM
Independent planning initiative clashes with new General Plan
Save Open Space Danville hopes to solidify Measure S, prevent zoning law changes
|
|
by Jessica Lipsky
Photo
 | A grassroots ballot initiative is beginning to circle through Danville as a citizens group gathers signatures to strengthen voter rights on future development.
The Save Open Space Danville initiative aims to end the sunset clause on Measure S -- which requires a resident vote on requested land use designation changes to the town's General Plan and is set to expire in 2020 -- and prevent zoning that organizers feel is wrong for agricultural or open space land.
"It's part of what this initiative would do, to extend Measure S in perpetuity," said SOS member Todd Gary. "But it's not enough because current Town Council and town planners aren't enforcing…they're circumventing the protections of Measure S."
Gary cited the ongoing Elworthy West development and highly disputed Summerhill Homes project at Magee Ranch as examples of town officials approving "development that isn't appropriate for land use." The initiative would also require a unanimous vote by the Town Council to change land use designation.
Although no developer has requested a land use change to the General Plan, SOS members are contesting the Plan 2030 update released on Oct. 19 as inconsistent with current planning laws. Under the 2030 plan, developers still need to request a land use change if they would like to develop more structures on land zoned for agricultural uses or as open space, though residents would not vote on the process without petitioning. Instead, amendments would go through a county-mandated review process that includes a majority Town Council vote.
"Twelve years have elapsed, we're kind of in paradigm shift. We're no longer in midst of or coming through an extensive development period, more of a build-out state," Chief of Planning Kevin Gailey said of the update. "It's timely to look at whether the goals and policies of 2005 and 2010 plan are applicable in this process. Policy makers still feel it's a very strong plan, very applicable partially because it's very general."
With regard to development, the 2030 plan encourages clustered residential development (or P-1) to keep homes off hills and ridgelines. It also changes zoning regulations after lands subject to the Williamson Act -- an agricultural preservation act which expires after 10 years or whenever the landowner decides -- expire, allowing for one house per five acre (A-2) zoning. Lands currently subject to the Williamson Act are zoned for one home per 20 acres (A-4).
"Essentially it's a practice that dates back prior to incorporation. County practice was that, as part of the contract, they would rezone the property to A-4," said town Attorney Rob Ewing. "When the property would come out of contract, the current General Plan reads that it would go back to whatever underlying zoning is."
Under the SOS measure, expired Williamson Act lands would retain A-4 zoning while changing zoning allowances on agricultural land would be subject to the same requirements as changing the land use designation. Likewise, the measure "reaffirms that Danville voters get to decide whether to allow clustered residential development."
"The only issue we really have is when town is rezoning and upzoning to permit four times the residential development. The initiative does seek to prevent the town from automatically redesignating open space to one in five acres," Gary said.
Gary continued that the SOS group is not anti-density, but believes there are more appropriate ways to cluster development under P-1.
"You can't put clustered 1/4 acre residential development on land designated as agricultural with minimum lot size requirements to support agriculture," he wrote. "If you want a P-1 development, you have to change the land use designation to a compatible land use (like residential), and that triggers Measure S."
While Ewing said that the placement of homes could affect the character of a town, the notion that A-4 zoning is inappropriate for agricultural land is incorrect. Many properties in Danville entered into Williamson Act contracts before the town was incorporated, he noted.
"In California planning law, the General Plan is the highest level document and things tier down after that. Zoning designation and general plans are different things, changing one doesn't mean changing another," Ewing said. "Measure S doesn't apply to rezoning changes. Agricultural allows for a certain amount of development to occur….Then the question is where, if any, those houses should be developed."
SOS has also criticized the town for its treatment of the 232 acres of open space behind the Elworthy West development. On Aug. 9, East Bay Regional Parks' General Manager Bob Doyle requested that the town postpone approval of the final development map in order to find funding for "a modest parcel assessment to help maintain and patrol the small parking area;" the town approved the map anyway.
Ewing insisted that the town did not help developer KB Homes get out of making an access point and that KB has fulfilled all conditions for approval of the project -- which included giving the land to EPRD and building a staging area above the homes as well as an access road off San Ramon Valley Boulevard. Several years later, after the project had been approved, the parks district asked for additional money and the town said no, Ewing added.
"It's not in the conditions of approval so we have no legal authority to make KB Homes do it," he said, adding that the Parks District said it had a separate agreement with KB. "No one has ever provided proof that that conversation happened. We imposed the conditions exactly as the Parks District asked us to, but at last minute they were looking for more money and I don't blame them for that."
Although the initiative will not appear on the Nov. 6 ballot, SOS Danville hopes to gather enough signatures to call for a special election. State law requires signatures from 15 percent of voters to call a special election and from 10 percent to be put on the ballot for the next general election.
The group has endorsed Bob Nealis, Jim Jelincic and Deanna Sullivan for Town Council as candidates that support the initiative.
"Were not anti-development. We believe in appropriate development and that means following the law. We want development to…protect everybody's rights and interest, both those of property owners who seek to develop their land and the property owners that live nearby," Gary said. Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by American, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 28, 2012 at 11:23 am If you want the town to follow the law and have us residents vote on this new huge development that will greatly increase traffic around three schools, a fire station and two retirement homes, you must vote the incumbents out, and vote for Nealis, Sullivan, and Jelincic.
|
|
Posted by protect your right to decide, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 29, 2012 at 9:13 am For more information, please see the Save Open Space-Danville website at www.SOS-Danville.com. Please sign the Open Space/Voters' Rights initiative petition and help get signatures for it! The website will tell you how.
|
|
Posted by diablodave, a resident of the Diablo neighborhood, on Oct 29, 2012 at 10:08 am
diablodave is a member (registered user) of Danville Express Whether you are pro development or anti development, or somewhere in between (like me). I am not opposed to development but it must be done in a manner that is thoughtful of the surrounding residents and respectful of the character of the community.
My issue is that the incumbent town council would rather make their deal with the developers (don't forget, money is involved here - development fees and future tax revenue) and not honor their obligation to honor the requirements of Measure S (which we voted in a number of years ago). If the town council thinks this is such a good thing for Danville and that it honors the character of the community, then why would they spend so much effort and money to fend off the request of their own citizens to put it to a vote and work so hard to circumvent the legal process we all voted for?
Politicians who fail in their obligation to listen to their constituency should hear from the citizens, and you have a perfect opportunity to give power to the voice of the community by exercising your right to vote next week.
|
|
Posted by Arlene, a resident of the Diablo neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2012 at 2:32 pm Danville Voters - Please speak for all of us in surrounding communities who can’t vote for Danville Town Council members but who value our open space, pay for our schools, parks, roads, etc., and are seriously affected by traffic congestion and all the other adverse affects brought about by such developments like Elworthy and SummerHill. Vote the incumbents out!! Vote for Nealis, Jelincic, and Sullivan
|
|
Posted by DougR, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2012 at 11:43 pm Arlene,
I appreciate the way you addressed the issue as a Diablo resident and I understand your concerns.
However, the issue you raise is traffic, so I'd like to discuss that for a minute. As someone who has driven the Blackhawk Rd./Diablo Rd. corridor for years during peak times, I feel I have some more specific knowledge on the issue, and the problem may surprise some.
But I'll get to that in a minute.
In the morning, Diablo residents have it pretty easy - only a right turn is necessary for most of them, and the backup to the Green Valley/Diablo Rd. traffic light is nothing like it was years ago due to the Town of Danville's continued tweaking of the light timing (and please don't think I have anything to do with town - I used to complain myself and I thought they were very helpful and responsive).
In the afternoon, Diablo residents may face a short backlog in turning left onto any of their streets.
However, I think most people agree that the biggest problem in the area is the stop sign at the Athenian School. And that is not under the jurisdiction of the town of Danville, it is the County's jurisdiction. And there are just as many County vehicles contributing to it as Town vehicles.
I feel the solution to this intersection is a round-a-bout, and wish the county would study its implementation. There's sufficient physical space for one, and it would go a long ways to alleviate the backups.
All our homes were built on land that was once open space, and I just don't think it's right that we automatically say no more development now that ours are built.
I have no interest in debating Measure S, but I will ask this question? Do the proponents of Measure S really think a vote is the right course of action? In a municipal election, you'll get many voters who will vote according to signs or a letter to the editor. They won't understand it. You will get voters on the other sides of town who will say "it doesn't affect me" and when told that increased taxes or developer fees will make the schools better, may vote for the development. I'd rather have big decisions made by knowledgeable, paid staff or elected officials who are accountable rather than the average Joe in town.
I don't work for the town, the developer, and don't know anyone who works at either place. I just have opinions.
|
|
Posted by Average Danville Joe, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2012 at 9:53 am @DougR: I appreciate your thoughtful discussion of the issues at hand. I have the following comments:
1. First and foremost, the issue is not SHOULD Danville voters get to vote on whether Magee ranch is converted from Agricultural land use (as it is in the 2010 Danville General Plan) to Residential land use to allow the SummerHill project to proceed. The voters gave themselves that right when they passed Measure S in 2000. Neither the Town Council, nor citizens such as yourselves that apparently voted "no" on Measure S, can legally deprive them of that right.
If you believe Council/Town planners know better then you, then follow their advice when you exercise your Measure S right to decide.I have noticed, however, that when controversial developments arise, the developers/large landowners always seem to win; somehow the omniscient Council and planners in their wisdom seem to believe a course of action that is good for developers/landowners is good for the Town's residents, even if they vociferously oppose that course.
2. The reasons traffic is not as bad at Green Valley/Diablo Road as three years ago is strictly due to the buses, and the fact of the Athenian stop sign, which has a metering effect. The back-up of 75-100 cars now seen at Athenian used to be at Green Valley/Diablo Road, and it would be again if a roundabout or a light is added at the Athenian intersection.
Furthermore, we all know that buses are great, but are never permanent. The funding simply dries up eventually. Just last spring, for example, the TRAFFIX board did a study comparing traffic in the Diablo corridor with the traffic around Coyote Creek in the Dougherty Valley to see which was worse and then allocated bus money accordingly. Diablo corridor was worse so the money will still flow our way for now, but it could be reallocated any year. Dougherty Valley is not even built out yet, so it could "win" the buses next time a study is done.
So when looking at traffic issues to decide whether a development should proceed, you must recall several years ago, when the traffic was routinely backed up to and past the Diablo entrance at Alameda Diablo, 1/2 mile from the Green/Valley Diablo Road intersection. To get a sobering reality check, ask the TRAFFIX staff for the traffic studies that justified allocating Measures C and J sales tax money to pay for buses for this corridor. You will be appalled that more discretionary development is even allowed at this point when you examine those studies.
3. Residents in other areas of Danville belong to SOS-Danville and are vital supporters of the initiative effort. They were denied their Measure S right to vote on the Elworthy Ranch development being built by KB Homes. Indeed, two of the three proponents listed on the SOS-Danville initiative petition are residents of other areas of Danville. Residents in the El Capitan Drive area have an Agricultural parcel in their midst that should be subject to a Measure S vote if residential develpment is proposed for it. Yes, residents in other areas of Danville understand what development means to an area of Town whose roads are already over capacity at peak times. When given the facts, the people will render an informed decision with their Measure S votes; isn't that what democracy is all about?
|
|
Posted by Happy in Danville, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2012 at 7:29 am The voters have spoken. They wanted a balanced approach to development. Congradulations to Mike, Newell and Renee.
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
