My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN021709
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
CCMIN021709
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/22/2009 3:14:43 PM
Creation date
3/20/2009 10:44:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/17/2009
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN021709
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The property is accessed off of Reimer's Drive behind the OSC and as a private gated <br />development, contains only one vehicle entrance and exit location. Concerns were raised <br />regarding the need for increased emergency vehicle access (EVA) and as a result, a primary <br />EVA off of Court G and connecting to Sandstone Court in the existing Ironwood development as <br />well as other internal EVAs have been established. <br />Following the Planning Commission's public hearing, concerns were raised over the project's <br />trail connections, all of which required residents to exit l:he development for access. It was <br />suggested by members of the community that there was opportunity to connect to trails from <br />within the project, particularly on the northern trail connection which is not City owned but is a <br />part of the Regional Trail Plan and is expected to extend out to the East Pleasanton Specific <br />Plan area and Chain of Lakes. While the Planning Comrission was satisfied, staff took the <br />issue to the ad hoc Trails Committee as well as the Recreation Commission; both bodies <br />recommended that the connection be made. <br />The staff report describes four options or levels of effort and staff has recommended Option 4 <br />which suggests that the applicant build an interior connection in conjunction with project <br />construction. The developer has prepared sketches to reconfigure lots 41 and 42 to allow a ten <br />foot easement and pathway leading to a locked gate accessed solely by residents. The <br />developer does not believe it is their responsibility to construct any portion of the actual trail but <br />staff recommends that they do construct a connection for the short segment leading back to the <br />public right of way. <br />Councilmember Sullivan asked to review the site plan and proposed trail heads and Mr. Dolan <br />explained that the exterior connection would run all along the Mohr Avenue alignment. <br />Mr. Dolan noted that while this project generates orte tenth of the trip impact that the alternative <br />school use would, the community has expressed concerns regarding traffic impacts at the <br />intersection of Santa Rita Road and Valley Road. He outlined staff's position relative to the Draft <br />General Plan Program 2.3 and the various short versus long term mitigation programs. As in the <br />past, staff recommends that impacts to this particular inter:>ection be mitigated only through the <br />collection of impact fees. <br />The community has also raised concerns over impacts to 1:his intersection resulting from heavy <br />truck traffic and it was suggested that a more strongly worded condition than the one typically <br />related to haul routes was in order. Mr. Dolan distributed a memo outlining two options for <br />revisions to Condition 93. The applicant drafted the first which is an improvement over what was <br />included in the original staff report in that it prohibits the routes that can be travelled but only <br />during the installation of site utilities and street improvements. Staff recommends a more <br />aggressive condition which would continue the haul route restriction through the entire <br />construction of the project and applies to trucks that are thn:e tons or greater. <br />Councilmember McGovern asked if this is zoned R1-6500 and Mr. Dolan said that it is planned <br />development which shares some characteristics with R1-6500. <br />Councilmember McGovern asked if the FAR is 40%~. Mr. Dolan said that FAR applies to the R1- <br />6500 zoning restriction. <br />Councilmember McGovern noted FAR continues to increase and now excludes parking garages <br />which in some instances cover the entire footprint of a home. If parking garages were included, <br />the FAR on some of these homes would increase to 68% which is concerning on a lot so small. <br />City Council Minutes Page 10 of 19 February 17, 2009 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.