3_Exhibits A & C-G - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Nagler agreed with Commissioner Allen that public amenities with Specific Plan Amendments are partly to offset the cost to the community of providing for higher density. He also believes that the City Council and Planning Commission have an obligation to not simply provide the right for people to be profitable on land within the City's boundaries, but an opportunity. In exchange for that opportunity, there is a value that the taxpayer ought to realize. He referred to the trail and asked how it would be maintained. Mr. Beaudin said if it is part of a newer PUD it is a maintenance agreement with the future HOA typically, but it is negotiated project-by-project. Chair Nagler said he would encourage staff to work with the applicant to be sure that the trail is properly maintained whether that becomes a mix of a public amenity for providing and maintaining the trail. He also agreed with Commissioner Allen's idea about funding, recognizing a reasonable amount given the size of the application and decide if that is helpful or not in some other project. He was flexible as to specifically what the amenity looks like and encouraged the applicant and staff to talk about some sort of a requirement or encouragement that the homes built on these parcels contain ADUs. The City is having on-going conversations about housing shortages and affordable housing and it is a challenge. He thinks ADU economics would be advantageous to a builder and it is smart for the City to require or encourage that this project and future projects include some number of those units. • Grading on the lots. Commissioners commented that the applicant has already agreed that some of the fill needs to be reduced and/or moved around and will work with staff on this to make it consistent and level with other homes along Sycamore. • The trail and the width of the trail. Chair Nagler stated this has been adequately discussed in the staff report. • Any other pieces of information or representations or graphics the Commission would like when the formal application returns. Commissioner Brown requested staff talk with the County and find out whether there will be any future plans for trail connection. Commissioner Ritter noted that the Trails Committee has a master plan that should coincide with this tying into the trail system. Commissioner Allen said she would like to see a detailed visual where the exact building pads would be along Sycamore Road. In the design she would like to see inclusion of garages and ADUs which will provide her with enough information in determining one or two lots. Excerpt: Planning Commission Minutes, July 11, 2018 Page 10 of 11 s 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