Density, traffic top concerns for Black Mountain plan in San Carlos

The properties where at least 130 residences are now planned were the subject of 2015’s Measure V. Aimed at protecting the sites from development and preserving them for open space and recreational use, the Measure V effort sought to raise the some $86 million required to purchase and improve the land but ultimately failed, garnering less than 40 percent of the vote when it needed two-thirds majority to pass.

With plans to include a two-car garage with each unit and some 44 guest parking spaces in the plans, Dragonfly’s project for the southern property will also feature a network of trails and a community hub and garden, said Stevens.

Monday’s meeting was aimed at gathering community input on an environmental review planned for the project, which Dragonfly initiated after submitting a formal application for the project late last year. Neighbors of the two projects planned for the hillside properties voiced concerns ranging from the projects’ effect on traffic on Alameda de las Pulgas and other nearby roads, how it will affect existing storm drains and sewers and whether those visiting the properties may park on nearby roads to access trails and open space on the properties.

Density, stormwater, traffic

A resident of Glasgow Lane, Amy Hathaway was joined by several others in sharing concerns about the overall number of homes proposed for the two sites, noting the six homes per acre currently planned for the Dragonfly site is double the density of some of the neighborhoods surrounding the project. Hathaway looked to the stability of the hillside, the project’s effects on the noise, traffic and nearby schools as well as the cumulative impact of both proposals as among the factors she would like to see officials study.

“That density is not keeping in with the character with all the surrounding neighborhoods, which are single-family homes built at about three homes per acre,” she said. “Keep the San Carlos hills single-family and put the density where it belongs, which is near transit.”

Greg Goodfellow with PlaceWorks, the firm hired to prepare the environmental impact report, said the report will offer an assessment of the project’s effects on the aesthetics, geology, biological resources and potential for wildfires, among other physical environmental effects.

Steve Noack, a principal with PlaceWorks, said a draft environmental impact report will draw from public input in addressing the project’s impacts and will take some two to three months to compile, adding the potential for future projects would also be studied in the report.

Having lived on Carmelita Drive, resident Douglas Murray could relate to the concerns several residents on that street shared about the development’s effect on the stormwater runoff for homes situated at lower elevations compared to the project site. But for Murray, who now lives on Heather Drive, whether a crosswalk at the development’s entrance and exit onto Alameda de las Pulgas would be enough to mitigate traffic and safety concerns was a major concern.

“They should have a signal light at that exit, a crosswalk is not adequate,” he said. “I think the developer should pay for it, not us taxpayers, because it’s going to be evident that a traffic light would be needed there.”

Noack explained recommendations to mitigate the project’s effect on traffic would also be included in the draft environmental impact report, which he estimated could be released as early as mid-summer. Once the draft report is released, he noted a 45-day comment period will follow to gather comments to be addressed in the final report, which requires approval by the Planning Commission before the project can go up for review.

Connecting the developments

Whether or not the two projects should be connected, how emergency vehicles would access homes in those neighborhoods and the routes residents would take to leave the properties in case of emergency were also among the concerns residents raised at Monday’s meeting. Resident Sandy Althouse was joined by several residents in seeking more information about the developer’s plans to remove some 230 protected trees, of which 186 are coast live oaks, from the property.

“The number of trees that are being taken out in San Carlos is ridiculous,” she said. “What can be done to try to keep more of these heritage trees?”

Though he acknowledged the concerns residents raised about the increased density to accompany the project, Commissioner John Dugan encouraged residents and officials to consider the new neighborhood that would be formed by the two projects once they are complete. Because the property is zoned for the type of housing the developer is proposing, Dugan acknowledged it could be unlikely the commission will be able to reject its plans outright and asked residents and officials to consider offering ideas for how the site’s history could be preserved or how a sense of community could be fostered on the site.

“This is the Black Mountain neighborhood,” he said. “We can’t really think of this as a development project in a narrow sense.”

Email city planner Lisa Costa Sanders at lcostasanders@cityofsancarlos.org or send mail to San Carlos City Hall at 600 Elm St. before April 1 to submit comments on the draft environmental impact report to be prepared for the Dragonfly project.

anna@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106