01 - Laserfiche WebLink

EVA off of Court G and connecting to Sandstone Court in the existing Ironwood development as well as other internal EVAs have been established. Following the Planning Commission's public hearing, concerns were raised over the project's trail connections, all of which required residents to exit the development for access. It was suggested by members of the community that there was opportunity to connect to trails from within the project, particularly on the northern trail connection which is not City owned but is a part of the Regional Trail Plan and is expected to extend out to the East Pleasanton Specific Plan area and Chain of Lakes. While the Planning Commission was satisfied, staff took the issue to the ad hoc Trails Committee as well as the Recreation Commission; both bodies recommended that the connection be made. The staff report describes four options or levels of effort and staff has recommended Option 4 which suggests that the applicant build an interior connection in conjunction with project construction. The developer has prepared sketches to reconfigure lots 41 and 42 to allow a ten foot easement and pathway leading to a locked gate accessed solely by residents. The developer does not believe it is their responsibility to construct any portion of the actual trail but staff recommends that they do construct a connection for the short segment leading back to the public right of way. Councilmember Sullivan asked to review the site plan and proposed trail heads and Mr. Dolan explained that the exterior connection would run all along the Mohr Avenue alignment. Mr. Dolan noted that while this project generates one tenth of the trip impact that the alternative school use would, the community has expressed concerns regarding traffic impacts at the intersection of Santa Rita Road and Valley Road. He outlined staff's position relative to the Draft General Plan Program 2.3 and the various short versus long term mitigation programs. As in the past, staff recommends that impacts to this particular intersection be mitigated only through the collection of impact fees. The community has also raised concerns over impacts to this intersection resulting from heavy truck traffic and it was suggested that a more strongly worded condition than the one typically related to haul routes was in order. Mr. Dolan distributed a memo outlining two options for revisions to Condition 93. The applicant drafted the first which is an improvement over what was included in the original staff report in that it prohibits the routes that can be travelled but only during the installation of site utilities and street improvements. Staff recommends a mare aggressive condition which would continue the haul route restriction through the entire construction of the project and applies to trucks that are three tons or greater. Councilmember McGovern asked if this is zoned R1-6500 and Mr. Dolan said that it is planned development which shares some characteristics with R1-6500. Councilmember McGovern asked if the FAR is 40%~. Mr. Dolan said that FAR applies to the R1- 6500 zoning restriction. Councilmember McGovern noted FAR continues to increase and now excludes parking garages which in some instances cover the entire footprint of a home. If parking garages were included, the FAR on some of these homes would increase by 68% which is concerning on a lot so small. Councilmember McGovern referred to the height limitation discrepancies between the staff report and conditions of approval and asked if this leaves an opportunity for additions on these City Council Minutes Page 10 of 19 February 17, 2009