11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Martin Interbitzen, applicant, 4218 Casterson Court, introduced key members of the consultant's team and recognized the company's project engineer, Mark McClellan, who prepared the exhibits, detailed drawings, and explanatory materials and performed a large volume of work in a way that non-engineers could understand and use. He made the applicant's presentation, describing the history of the site and the citizens' referendum of the previously approved project. He noted that this was the lowest density residential development in the entire General Plan for the City. He noted that they examined site characteristics, trees, biology, and geology and explored a number of alternative planning concepts, including lotting out the entire property in five-acre lots and creating an attached high-density clustered project at the entrance to the current project proposal. He noted that they performed a community survey and several focus groups to determine the community's opinions on how a project in this area might relate to them. He noted that they had numerous individual meetings with residents, staff, City Council members, Planning Commissioners, and consultants, as well as several workshops, including a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop. They also made presentations to the HOA's of the Grey Eagle Estates and Kottinger Ranch. They tried to accommodate as many concerns as they could from as many different viewpoints as possible. He then displayed the site plan on the overhead screen and described the major features of the project site. He noted that the site would include the biggest park in the City of Pleasanton. He noted that to develop a site plan that would be consistent with the surrounding properties, they must be respectful of the surrounding environment. They designed the development to stay out of the drainages and the trees, leaving a development along the ridgeline similar to that of Kottinger Ranch and Grey Eagle Estates. He noted that their primary issue was traffic for the main access to the project, from Hearst Drive down to Bernal Avenue. He noted that the number of cars per day became a significant issue for the Kottinger Ranch residents, and they spent a considerable amount of time working with them in order to mitigate those issues. The other major concern was view impact. He noted that by grading some of the area, they brought the homes sites down to the best of their ability and shielded the homes with mitigation landscaping and tree planting. He noted that they planned to remove 58 of over 12,000 trees on this site. He described the on-lot tree mitigation requirement for each lot of one tree per 3,000 square feet and added that approximately 1,000 trees would replace the 58 trees being removed from this site. Mr. Interbitzen noted that they reduced the traffic by reducing the number of lots on the project by 471ots from 98 to 51 lots. He described the lot characteristics and displayed the phasing plan. He noted that they developed a set of design guidelines and emphasized that this was a lotting application; he noted that the designs for the custom houses would come to the Planning Commission on an individual basis to prevent abuse by future buyers. He noted that they also delineated how the houses would fit into the lots, as well as articulation on the elevations and how the landscaping would fit into the area so that the project truly integrated into the location. He believed it was unfortunate to argue over the FARs for houses that had not yet been designed and that they intended to set the maximum FAR. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 13, 2007 Page 9 of 19