17 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Parks And Recreation Commission/Trails Ad-Hoc Committee Work Session The Parks and Recreation Commission and the Trails Ad-Hoc Committee work Session held a work session on January 11, 2007 to discuss and make recommendations on the open space areas of the Oak Grove development: ownership, type of facilities, and timing. Minutes of the meeting are attached as Exhibit I-2. The Parks and Recreation Commissionlfrails Ad-Hoc Committee voted to support: ^ The open space area shall be owned by the City upon recordation of the first subdivision map for the development; ^ A trails staging area shall be provided in the general area near the proposed water tank with 11 parking spaces, restrooms, horse trough, and water fountain; ^ Local and regional trails shall be constructed with no connections to Benedict Court; ^ The trails and staging area shall be constructed and accepted by the City before the sale of the fifth lot; and, ^ A neighborhood park would not have to be provided with this development given the open space dedication, provision of trails, and the lack of a flat, five-acre site. VIII. PUBLIC NOTICE Staff understands that the Kottinger Ranch Homeowners Association has reviewed this plan and has indicated its support for it. Issues pertaining to the open space ownership and public trails/staging areas for the development plan were addressed at a stakeholders meeting which included City staff, representatives of the Kottinger Ranch Homeowners Association, Tri-Valley Conservancy, the applicant, and the public. Attachment 6, Exhibit E-2, Public Communications - a list of the homeowners that have commented on the proposal, the map of the noticing area, and copies of comments received during the project review process -was provided to the Planning Commission with its previous packet. Responses to these comments are contained within the FEIR as noted above. Attached to this staff report are the public comments received by staff since the publication of the previous staff report. The project was noticed to an area greater than the 1,000 feet as shown on Attachment 6, Exhibit E-2. The public comments generally cover the project and environmental issues pertaining to available City and regional parks to service the residents of the proposed project, available school capacity to serve the children of the proposed project, impacts to the quality of life of existing neighborhoods, loss of existing trees, loss of open space provided by the subject property, loss of views, the single public street connection to Hearst Drive, the emergency vehicle access to Grey Eagle Court, proposed density, traffic and circulation, etc. Early in the processing of this proposal, several neighbors stated that the proposed project was premature given the update of the Pleasanton General Plan. PUD-33 Page 56 of 59 June 13, 2007