The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.1 - Comment - Bette Brockman November 10, 2020 Comments and recommendations on Item 6.1; proposed development at 1475 Lawrence Rd I have strong concerns regarding the treatment of Trees #1 and #2. These trees are on my property and should not enter into the discussion other than to be sure that they are not damaged due to aspects of the proposal. Please refer to the photo attachment to this document. The paved portion of the road approaching the bridge needs to be narrowed to help protect these trees. As shown in Attachment 1, this should be sufficient to save the trees and ensure that the entryway retains the tranquil, rural atmosphere as much as possible, especially with the removal of the overhead power lines that will allow these trees to flourish, along with their neighbors (refer to photos in Attachment 2). Miscellaneous comments and issues The iconic Black Walnuts along the Lawrence Road right-of-way should be off-limits to removal unless they are completely dead. The concrete curb on the South side of the driveway is worrisome. Curbs are out of place in rural areas, as there are no gutters and storm drains. Soft shoulders and natural drainage make more sense and are strongly preferred. Who would maintain the drainage flow along these curbs? What keeps water from draining into the creek anyway at the lower, eastern end? Such flow is not a significant pollution concern (even though it would be preferable to have the water go over land before reaching the creek) but it begs the question of why bother with the curb at all. We, the Sius and the proposed parcels will continue to share the common flagpole entry and use the utilities running along it. Utility easements added to this entry way should allow for connections to all the properties. This may be a requirement for any shared road but is especially useful here given the creek bed and the problematic nature of crossing it without environmental impacts. What is being proposed as far as the power lines crossing the creek? The proposed loss of trees on the North side of Parcel C is staggering. It includes a grove of 6 mature California Redwoods and many other mixed species. It is crowded and could use thinning, but not clear-cutting. This is due to two aspects of the driveway access to Parcel D. First, it is 34’ wide, presumably for parking for lots over an acre in size with plenty of room for on-site parking. Second, the driveway shares a border with the existing Sius driveway easement of 25’. This results in a 60’ wide swath of roadway in the heart of the “rural” Lawrence Road region. Is this the best we can do? Did the Sius ever acknowledge being contacted? If so, what was their input? Summary of recommendations Modify the roadway approaching the bridge. Ensure that Danville controls when the Lawrence Road ROW trees get removed. Eliminate the curb on the South side of the entryway (or clarify its function/design/upkeep). Ensure that our existing power connections will not be disrupted. Bette Brockman, 1463 Lawrence Rd, Danville November 10, 2020 About the photo: It's taken looking East as you approach the bridge. The fence on the right is our property boundary and the trees (labeled) are ours, not part of this proposal. The good news: These trees can be properly protected with no negative impact to the proposed project. Comments: The bridge is obviously one lane (+/-18'). Trafﬁc channels to the center 10-12' of the roadway (the red lines), so there is no need for intrusively wide road development approaching the bridge. The trees are established and in good health. They have survived the construction of a 12' deep sewer line and resurfacing of the driveway by CCCSD. In part, this is because their bases are well below (12" and 30") the road grade and they have a creek bed to establish roots that are not dependent on the roadway base. Nonetheless, these trees will be at risk if the roadway is allowed to encroach too close or severly (deep) near their bases. Fortunately, there is no need for this. A gravel surface can continue to sufﬁce as a shoulder. Side Note: Without overhead power lines, oaks #1 and #2 can expand to provide a near continuous, high canopy between the large oaks that span the full width of the two properties. This would be signiﬁcant enhancement to the entryway to the parcels beyond the creek, especially given the unfortunate potential loss of the tree-lined entryway and the removal of scores of unprotected trees. This natural feature, along with the one-lane, speed-reducing bridge, will help preserve some of the historic serenity of these parcels. About the photo:! It's taken looking East as you approach the bridge. The fence on the right is our property boundary and the trees (labeled) are ours, not part of this proposal.! ! The good news:! These trees can be properly protected with no negative impact to the proposed project.! ! Comments:! The bridge is obviously one lane (+/-18'). Trafﬁc channels to the center 10-12' of the roadway (the red lines), so there is no need for intrusively wide road development approaching the bridge.! ! The trees are established and in good health. They have survived the construction of a 12' deep sewer line and resurfacing of the driveway by CCCSD. In part, this is because their bases are well below (12" and 30") the road grade and they have a creek bed to establish roots that are not dependent on the roadway base. Nonetheless, these trees will be at risk if the roadway is allowed to encroach too close or severly (deep) near their bases. ! ! Fortunately, there is no need for this. A gravel surface can continue to sufﬁce as a shoulder.! ! Side Note: Without overhead power lines, oaks #1 and #2 can expand to provide a near continuous, high canopy between the large oaks that span the full width of the two properties. This would be signiﬁcant enhancement to the entryway to the parcels beyond the creek, especially given the unfortunate potential loss of the tree-lined entryway and the removal of scores of unprotected trees. This natural feature, along with the one-lane, speed-reducing bridge, will help preserve some of the historic serenity of these parcels. Attachment 1; Regarding Protected Trees #1 & #2 near the bridge Edge of f u n c t i o n a l s u r f a c e #1 #2 Propose d e d g e Protected Oaks This is a one lane bridge: ! Don't risk key trees for unnecessary pavement November 10, 2020 Attachment 2; Entry lane and string of oaks along creek Entry lane, looking east 1475 Richards #1 & 2