CCMIN080613SP - Laserfiche WebLink

developments which do not comply with ADA, they routinely accommodate residents with special requirements like this because it is just good business. Councilmember Pentin shared several other concerns, stating that he preferred for the applicant to install natural as opposed to synthetic grass over the podium parking area. He also shared the Vice Mayor's concern over the connection from Iron Horse Trail and said he was always led to believe that this property would be responsible for improvements at the intersection. He acknowledged that cost is a factor and asked staff to address what modifications, if any, can be made here. Mr. Tassano acknowledged that staff has looked at improvements here, though not necessarily as part of this particular project. As part of the Pedestrian Bicycle Master Plan, staff and several consulting engineers studied the intersection to try and identify solutions. The current design, with two right hand turn lanes, is not usually an ideal pedestrian situation. At that time, staff considered installing a pork chop island to provide pedestrians with at least some refuge and ultimately conditioned Ponderosa Homes to build the $1 million modification. Subsequent review, however, revealed that the existing retaining wall which extends almost all the way up to the westbound movement doesn't allow sufficient visibility of the vehicles. Staff determined that the modification did not improve safety enough to allow for pedestrian crossing and looked into constructing a new retaining wall. The cost for the two pedestrian improvements was approximately $3 million, which staff felt was not the most efficient use of funds. Ultimately, the master plan abandoned thoughts of improving the intersection and decided to focus on extending Iron Horse Trail further down towards Shadow Cliffs as part of the East Pleasanton Specific Plan. Councilmember Pentin stated his support for the project. Councilmember Brown acknowledged the difficulties of increased traffic on this side of town, which is obviously the result of new development. She noted that in selecting sites to rezone high density, the goal was to spread the burden throughout the city. She also noted that increased traffic congestion is not, per the settlement agreement, a valid reason to block to development and therefore a burden that everyone must bear at some point. She shared several concerns she discussed with staff that relate to the number of retail parking spaces and children playing in the arroyo near the development, but said that staff has reassured her on both points. She referred to Condition of Approval No. 127 and said she hoped the developer does not elect to install pellet stoves or other wood burning devices in the project. She said the project did an excellent job of meeting the city's green building guidelines, achieving a total of 139 points where only 50 are required. She thanked the applicant for limiting the hours of commercial operation and for commissioning an EMF study related to the adjacent PG&E substation, which found the emissions to be significantly less than what is considered safe by professional organizations. With regard to the construction of affordable housing units versus the in lieu fee, she said she would support a decision in favor of the in lieu fee tonight. Commissioner Narum said she first reviewed this project at the Planning Commission workshop and is pleased with how it has evolved. She said she liked the current proposal for the retail corner as well as the condition that this and other landscaping improvements be completed concurrent with the residential development. She said she appreciated the flexibility in the Affordable Housing Agreement and the applicant's willingness to provide 3 accessible units regardless of which option is chosen, but also that she would like to see what the remaining projects coming forward yield in terms of units and funds before making a decision. She said she believed some of the concerns expressed regarding traffic are legitimate but also that the Stoneridge extension would mitigate those concerns considerably. She agreed that at least a portion of the traffic fees should be used for El Charro if ever built but said she would not support earmarking those funds until they know what the project would look like or what the development's fair share would be. She asked that staff look into addressing Mr. Russman's concerns over vegetation. She disagreed with staff regarding the installation of artificial turf, noted that it is a City Council Minutes Page 8 of 10 August 6, 2013