01.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember McGovern said she knows some did, she said she knows exactly the homes and their locations, and said they are stark. She believes if this project is approved, someone must have afollow-up plan to make sure the trees are planted and at the end of 15 years, the site is absolutely screened. Regarding grazing on the land, Councilmember McGovern questioned how the City is going to make sure that if small trees are planted, and they will not be eaten by the grazing animals. Mr. Iserson said there is a requirement for a grazing plan to be developed to address those issues and ensure the grazing is appropriate. Councilmember McGovern referred to the two intersections and the statement of overriding considerations, said the City knows it has bad intersections and said there is a discrepancy in the report where one section says Bernal is LOS E and the Draft EIR states it is LOS F. She questioned if the City could collect funds to try and do something to these impacted intersections instead of simply issuing this kind of statement. Mr. Iserson said the $1 million in traffic mitigation fees is well above the required fee imposed for the normal traffic fee. Whatever is not used for the signal or calming on Hearst Drive would go into the City's traffic pool of funds to be used for other intersections. Mayor Hosterman said she was contacted by someone concerned about the 496 acres of open space and whether or not it would truly be set aside in perpetuity. She said if stewardship of the property was taken over by the Tri-Valley Conservancy, whether or not a future Council could override this decision. Mr. Iserson said staff responded to this by the conservation easement which would require this to be maintained in perpetuity in open space, and involving the Conservancy would protect this issue into the future. If the Council chooses to support the proposal for 51 units, the City would receive close to 500 acres of open space kept in perpetuity. Mr. Iserson corrected a statement he had made earlier regarding phasing and said it would be after the sale of the 5th lot that the staging area for the trails would be constructed, and not the 7cn lot. City Attorney Roush said this also assumes that the final map is approved by the Council and the developer moves ahead with the project. Councilmember Sullivan confirmed that prior to approving the final map, the third party easement would be brought to Council at the same time, and he confirmed once the easement is in place it was not completely impossible to remove it, it was not in the Council's sole discretion, but it is extremely difficult for a future Council to revoke it. Mayor Hosterman called fora 3 minute break, and thereafter, reconvened the regular meeting with all members being present. Martin Inderbitzen, applicant representing the Lin Family, said in the review of points raised by the HOA, the issue of a crossing guard came up. They agreed to this and did expect that it would be in the development agreement. Regarding the signal, they are paying for the signal so the money is there for the City to build it whenever the community and Council wants to. He said the $1 million is about 5 times of what the normal traffic impact fee would be for a project of this size. The (revised) potential for the lot configuration is one they agree with and if the Council would like this implemented prior to the tentative map stage they are in full support of it and felt it was an improvement to the project. They feel the one-story condition will do a lot for mitigating visual impacts. They agree also that the relocated lot 2 which has been removed and relocated further back into the plan should not be placed in one of the high visibility locations and will work with staff on its location. They would request that the one-story limit be set at 26 feet because it provides a little more flexibility in the house design, but this is at Council's discretion. They have City Council Minutes 11 October 2, 2007