11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to Chairperson Arkin's concerns regarding the residents' attitudes towards driving six minutes to get to a main artery, Mr. Tassano noted that neighborhood peer pressure will slow the traffic and that drivers generally drove faster away from their own neighborhood. Chairperson Arkin inquired what could be done to slow people down on the arterial road. Mr. Tassano noted that a narrow road tended to slow drivers down. Chairperson Arkin suggested putting a landscape median on Hearst Drive. Mr. Tassano noted that was similar to the median on Montevino Drive. Mr. Pavan had observed traffic at high speeds on Hearst Drive and added that the applicant had offered to contribute a sum of money to the Kottinger Homeowners Association to implement traffic calming measures on Hearst Drive to be identified at a later date. This could be addressed in the Final EIR as well as in the project analysis. In response to Commissioner Fox's concerns regarding the regional trail, Ms. Decker replied that the open space acreage will be held in private until its transfer to the City. At that time, the City will evaluate and place on a work plan the timing for the trails and its connections, which will become available for public use. In response to an observation by Commissioner Olson that the 51-lot alternative had larger lots than the 98-lot alternative, Mr. Pavan confirmed that was correct. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Olson regarding whether the 40 percent floor area ration (FAR) would be applied to the larger lots, Mr. Pavan replied that the FAR was a matter of concern to staff and neighbors. The guidelines specified a 25 -percent FAR with no floor area cap. He added that a larger house that was incorrectly designed would require significant grading. However, if a hillside house is designed correctly, the grading may not necessarily change. Staff still wants to pay careful attention to floor areas and FARs. Ms. Decker noted that the City's policy was to closely examine the size of homes versus lot size. She noted that the Reznick project, for example, had large lots, but the developable area was constrained, and the lot size and floor area size were based on different criteria. She noted that the City was sensitive to actual land areas and looked closely at it with respect to its impacts on the PUD. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Mary Roberts, 1666 Froghill Lane, noted that she was extremely concerned about how the open space acreage would be transferred from a homeowners association to the City. She inquired about the environmental problems that will occur by a homeowners association owning all 500 acres. She believed there might be a danger that should be identified and that a staging area at the proposed park in the Vineyard Corridor would encounter a methane problem belonging to the Pleasanton Garbage Service. She was concerned about the considerable length of time that it would take for the trails to be developed. She noted that because the regional trail ran through the Berlogar property and that the staging area was relatively flat, the hiking ability may be limited. She suggested that if the staging area was at the end of Hearst Drive, there could be two (one off of Vineyard Avenue and one off of Hearst Drive) that maybe able to break it up enough to avoid traffic impacts in one place. She believed the EIR needed to identify the open space issue and the problems of that much open space being owned by a homeowners association. Chairperson Arkin believed the open space would be deeded to the City. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, August, 23, 2006 Page 3 of 4