CCMIN101999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Swift said those are the only two where the staff recommendation is different from the committee. The park was not an issue for this particular project and because of topography, this is not the best place for the park they want. Staff has plans for a park in the south Pleasanton area and that is included in the Capital Improvement Program for acquisition and it is included in the priority list for staff. Mr. Swift said items b and c of the staff report are the only issues of disagreement with the Ventana Hills committee. The remaining issues were resolved. They will be determined at the tentative map stage and staff is aware of the committee' s position and feel the existing conditions of approval cover them satisfactorily. Mayor Tarver supported the staffs need for access and open offers of dedication for public access. It is impossible to develop trails after residences are built. He appreciated staff trying to preserve the open offer of dedication, however the trail is a ways off, it is not going from anywhere to anywhere and is tied to the Lund development, the timing of which is unknown. By that time the people who will move into the New Cities development will probably feel the same way the Ventana Hills residents do. He was concemed about the location and privacy issues. Ms. Michelotti asked how wide the buffer was from the back of one property to the back of the opposite property. Mr. Swift said it was 180 to 200 feet with only one house in the new project to be close to where a trail potentially could be installed. Whether a trail could be satisfactorily introduced into that area so it achieves the privacy issues raised by the downhill neighbors and satisfies the one lot on the uphill side is questionable. That is why staff was leaving the issue open to future possibility, rather than precluding it at this point. Ms. Dennis asked if the open offer of dedication would be disclosed to new property owners? Mr. Swift said yes. Ms. Michelotti asked if twelve feet was the minimum width for the access road. Mr. Swift said the engineering staff believed that twelve feet was the minimum for an adequate road for this use. It could be smaller, but there needs to be an ability to turn around at the end. The Fire Department, which may use this road if there is an accident in the creek, normally wants thirteen feet six inches, but it accepted the twelve feet. The road must be at least eight feet but not wider than twelve feet. The hillside here is not very steep and there would be no significant grading. The only issue is not to make the road enticing to someone; just to find out there is only a creek and they have to turn around and come back. A straw vote motion was made by Ms. Dennis, seconded by Ms. Michelotti, to approve the staff recommendation. Pleasanton City Council Minutes 17 10/19/99