3_Exhibits A & C-G - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Ritter said in continuing the discussion regarding amenities, the City always wants to achieve a community benefit when applicants are requesting a Specific Plan Amendment. He agreed with Commissioner Allen's discussion of Dale Way which should be paved, and this is part of a public amenity. To have a driveway come off of that road would be awkward. Mr. Beaudin commented that there are actually two maps back to back in Figures 2 and 4 that show the parcels before and the parcels after. The lot line adjustment essentially reconfigured things such that the road could go through, but the net acreage is fairly similar. Pages 4 and 5 show how things shifted to create the opportunity for both developable parcels today that front Sycamore Creek Way. He wanted to make it clear for the record that the lot line adjustment in making room for Sycamore Creek Road actually does not look like a net loss of acreage to the applicant, but it looks like it gives a more developable parcel overall. Commissioner Brown voiced his struggle with the question regarding amenities because in prior discussions the Commission was approving a project that was adding a lot of more traffic or more sewer or water demands. This parcel in its current form would allow three and possibly expanded to 5 lots so the incremental water, sewage and road traffic demands are less, so he struggles with this. What is more relevant to him is the issue with the trail that dead ends at the property. He would like some separation between pedestrian and bike traffic and if that same access was being used as a driveway, that there be some separation. There would be a cost involved with separating or building something that could be used as a driveway versus a trail, and to him this will net into a sufficient amenity discussion as it relates to this property. The piece he was struggling with is that the City does not know what the County's plans are at this time on what this trail would connect to, so the discussion around amenities should be tied to the trail that transects the project site rather than discussions around other amenities related in and around this development. Commissioner Allen said she feels strongly that amenities should be required for any additional density given. More amenities should be required if they end up with 5 homes than should be given with 4 homes because it should be commensurate with the additional value the land owner is getting for this. This is important because it is part of the General Plan, part of the North Sycamore Specific Plan and also a way to deal with fairness to other people. This is a way for the City to show the value that is provided back to residents as a result. In terms of what would be amenities, because a design for connection of a trail would be ready in the near term, she recommended funding be provided by the applicant to the City to be used for the highest priority projects in the bike and pedestrian master plan that deal with connectivity, especially in south Pleasanton. One in particular is the circuit bicyclists take from Sycamore to Foothill and then around Foothill. One of the key provisions is for a wider bike lane on Foothill so there is a logical connection to improving bicycling along the corridor here that is realistic in the near term and money can do that. She asked that staff look at other options along those lines, and how much of a contribution was realistic based on splitting the difference of the profit a land owner would receive by having the additional two parcels. Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes, July 11, 2018 Page 9 of 11 , 2018 Page 3 of 11 Way, existing lots range from 15,033 sq. ft. (5769 Hanifen Way)to 20,313 sq. ft. (1008 Sycamore Creek Way). P18-0075, 990 Sycamore Road Planning Commission 11of16 'Y a 0421 0 0 �I ,�� r •u"' - 36. ,`a yy�� n2+a /'�. oM 'le' k� W, k 3S 94 '@ g 'via R T3 1:5,300 0 0.05 0.1 mi PUD-89-06-08M, Gabriela Marks, 4210 Rosewood Drive Planning Division _ January 7 2020 `( �� ""�� 0 330 660 Feet I Y I , I I