HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 - Comment - Jean PriceMeeting of November 10, 2020 JOINT STUDY SESSION Item 3.1
TO: Mayor and Town Council, Chair and Planning Commission & Chair and Design Review Board
November 05, 2020
I support the redevelopment of the proposed property for mixed uses in the core of the Danville’s
downtown pedestrian district. I am quite familiar with multifamily access and parking demands. I ask
town officials to please carefully review the Hartz Avenue access driveway to the underground parking
garage, and the poor parking design. Please consider any opportunity to move the garage access driveway
off of Hartz and to another location. Perhaps either a “shared parking access point” to the garage off the
town’s public parking lot, or access from Front Street, utilize a “bridged driveway” crossing over the
flood easement. For consideration:
• Hartz is no longer consistent with a minor arterial designation; it is a major arterial, and already often
precarious and unsafe to exit and enter from side streets. It is especially impacted during commute
hours, school schedules and when freeway traffic is disrupted. This already impacts first responders,
whom use residential streets Estates and El Dorado to “bypass” a congested downtown.
• The volume of vehicles for 33 housing units having their sole parking access crossing the sidewalk on
Hartz is unsafe and inconsistent with the “2030 General Plan” goals for a consumer friendly and
walkable downtown, is not consistent the “Downtown Master Plan” for a walkable pedestrian friendly
Danville, and does not seem consistent with MTC / ABAG “Complete Streets” mandates?
• A Hartz driveway reroutes residential residents’ who find no parking in the garage back to Hartz,
rather than public parking areas or nearby streets. Hartz street parking is needed to support our tax-
generating businesses and not residential overflow. Having a driveway cross this pedestrian area will
require losing some adjacent curb parking footage for safe “line of sight” egress?
• Many “dens” will absolutely be used as bedrooms. This space may be later enclosed as bedrooms to
increase the property value? Is the “real count” as 2 one-bedroom, 5 two-bedroom and 26 3-bedroom
units?
• PARKING: 30 of the proposed 65 residential parking are tandem spaces.; 46%. This inconvenient
type of parking rarely works as it is intended. It will unsafely stop other cars in the 24 foot aisle when
families are switching two cars. Even if the landlord is required to have an lease addendum that
requires the family to use BOTH their tandem spaces before using the few guest parking spaces, retail
spaces, or street parking, it will never be enforced. Counting that parking as meeting the parking
requirements becomes irrelevant. A payment of the Town’s off-site parking in-lieu fee in perpetuity
is more desirable.
• GUEST PARKING: One bedroom units utilize guest parking more than larger units. Plans indicate 8
guest parking spaces: Two interior guest spaces and five “curb” spaces is seven spaces, when eight
are required? Two guest parking spaces comingled within the retail spaces will likely result in all
those 15 parking spaces to be swiftly used by the residents. Residents will use the retail parking
unless it is signed for short time periods and enforced. Allowing five curb spaces towards a total of 8
guest parking is paramount to not requiring that parking – a deficiency in such an impacted area?
• TRASH: Dumpster collection appears to requires a truck to “park” in a down-ramp underground area
is concerning. What measures will be taken to insure this trash collection is safe?
• MAIL: Multifamily mail delivery is a concern. No parking signs will be needed on the incoming ramp
to insure USPS / other delivery drivers are warned to not park in the down ramp driveway?
Thank you for consideration of my thoughts ~
Jean Price
Danville, CA 94526