01.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Council deliberates and takes actions, that it first act on the EIR and then act on the PUD and development agreement. Councilmember Sullivan referred to Court 1 and asked for clarification. Mr. Iserson said the lots were originally situated in a different location and there was a wider cul-de-sac. The applicant is proposing to delete one lot, make it a private driveway, shift Lot 2 to a flatter area allowing the perimeter to be more broad that could serve for additional tree screening, and the re-located lot would be determined at the tentative map stage. The grading on Court 1 would also require about ±20 feet of cut and the applicant would propose another 5 feet to lower the houses down further. Also, Lots 2, 3 and 4 would be one-story homes. Staff feels the combination of these changes would diminish the visual impacts on Court 1, which was identified as a concern. Councilmember Thorne confirmed that the stop light at the Kottinger Drive/Bernal Avenue intersection was something the HOA representatives specifically requested. Mr. Iserson said they did not want a stoplight at Hearst and Bernal which would encourage cut-through traffic through Concord, Vintage Hills, and down Hearst and until such a light was installed, and the 4- way stop at Kottinger/Bernal would remain as would the stop sign at Hearst/Bernal. Councilmember Thorne questioned if the preference was for a signal and City Manager Fialho said HOA representatives had an interest in alleviating traffic at Hearst Drive. The City's Traffic Engineer suggested metering traffic at Kottinger and Bernal through a traffic signal; however, initially, staff would not propose the signal be installed because there is not ashort-term need. Councilmember Sullivan confirmed that typically after intersections achieve and warrant a signal, they are approved by staff, and City Manager Fialho said the signal could be conditioned to be approved by the City Council. Councilmember Cook-Kallio asked if there was an attrition rate or statistic for Blue Oak trees over a period of time, and Mr. Iserson said some of the trees slated for removal are not in the best condition and may likely die in the short term. Oak trees, in general, last a very long time, but some exhibit aging, disease and failure. Councilmember McGovern referred to the Draft EIR, page 76; that mandatory guidelines should be revised to include lots 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 51 as high visibility lots. She questioned if this was done, and if not, why they were not identified. Mr. Iserson said in the current conditions of approval they were added to the high visibility lots, the lot numbers changed due to reducing the numbers of lots from the 98 to the 51. Staff reviewed this and will ensure those high visibility lots are identified to be mitigated. Councilmember McGovern said people have asked her why Measure F does not cover the project, and Mr. Iserson said Measure F was written to address the Pleasanton Ridge and the Main Ridge. He said the Southeast Pleasanton Hills contains many ridges and there is no resolution, ordinance or vote that dealt with this ridge. Councilmember McGovern confirmed with the City Manager that, depending upon how an initiative was written and passed, it could protect all Pleasanton ridges and this area, as well. Councilmember McGovern referred to the Fire Code and EVA and said she was not clear on whether the roads to Benedict Court or Grey Eagle are actually considered EVA's or just fire roads. Mr. Iserson said these are fire roads that are approved to the standards of the fire department to function as access routes for fire apparatus up to the site in the event of a fire, and not so much for egress out of the site. She confirmed Hearst Drive was the only actual ingress and egress. City Council Minutes 7 October 2, 2007