Questions & Responses from 2/15/17 Village at Ironwood Neighborhood Meeting
7:00 PM @ the Ironwood Village Clubhouse
The price range will be dependent on the market conditions at the time the homes are built. However, there will be a diversity of housing types and based on today’s values, would expect prices to be in the $800,000 – $1.2 million range.
The plan is only conceptual so home sizes have not been determined yet. However, we would expect the ranges to be from 1,600-1,800 square feet on the smaller end to 2,800-3,000 square feet on the larger end.
The overall site density is approximately 3 units per acre (~890 units over 320 acres). This calculation does include the commercial space, most of which is at the north end of the site (north of Lake I), parks and amenity space.
PUSD has been talking about building a new school near Neal. Is this where that new school would go?
While this plan has allocated land for a new elementary or K-8 school, PUSD has not indicated what their need or preference would be. PUSD’s current study is likely to contemplate a school being built before this project could deliver a buildable school site.
The project would likely be built out in five phases over 10-15 years beginning in approximately 2020.
Property just east of Ironwood Village.
The design of Phase I has not been developed to the point where the housing types has been designed to that level. If the project is prioritized for planning, we would do additional outreach and consultation with the community to ensure that the design is respectful of the adjacent neighborhood.
Wouldn’t we be better off if Phase 1, next to Ironwood Villages, were built before the State mandates come?
If I were sitting in your seat, I would think so.
El Charro would likely be built out in three phases, starting with the construction of a two lane El Charro Road that would connect Busch to Stoneridge. The second phase would expand that road to four lanes and the third and final phase would create the connection between Busch Road and Stanley Blvd.
Those are undetermined at this time given the very conceptual nature of the plan. However, as a part of the approval process, lighting consultants would be brought in to evaluate park lighting impacts and provide design solutions to mitigate light impacts.
Kiewit is likely to build out their site at some point in the future. The East Pleasanton Specific Plan called for 1,300 units, of which approximately 250 would have been on the Kiewit property. If Kiewit does build homes, it will likely be in the 200-250 unit range.
By facilitating and funding the construction of El Charro Road, according to traffic engineers the new homes will help relieve north-south traffic that is currently using Valley-Santa Rita for access between Stoneridge and Stanley Blvd., and reduce east-west cut through traffic.
The homes on the east side of Ironwood Village will have rear yards that provide a buffer.
Best case is that rezoning takes two years, followed by another year for additional approvals and building permits. This would allow Phase 1 construction to possibly begin in 2020. The remaining phases of the project would be build out as determined by both the City through a Development Agreement, and market conditions.
The road behind the wall is a private access road utilized by Zone 7. That access road would be removed during construction of Phase 1.
The land is vacant with only private access permitted by Zone 7 and Vulcan.
Steelwave has investigated the conditions and do not see evidence of pooling along the road. However, conditions during the rainstorm were not observed and Steelwave’s local project manager will connect directly with the affected homeowner to obtain further details so the issue can be identified and resolved.
Public transportation and accessibility for alternate modes of transportation was an important principle in developing the concept plan. The new neighborhood will be served by public transportation. Additionally, bike infrastructure has been prioritized in order to provide safe and convenient bike access to BART, ACE and local employers.
If City Council prioritizes planning for the project, we can move on to refining the plan and looking more closely at housing types and we will welcome input from Ironwood during that process.
This preference can be taken into consideration during the planning process, which we’re hoping the City decides to initiate when it sets its 2017-2018 Priority List Work Plan next month.
Most of the commercial will be located at the north end of the site (north of Lake I). A small amount of neighborhood retail, potential live/work-type buildings and 1-3 story office buildings will be located at the center of the new neighborhood.
I have been told the Ironwood Villages yard setback is 12’.
The relocation of the OSC is not contemplated as a part of our plan. Whether it moves in the future will be up to the City. This was studied during the East Pleasanton Specific Plan process and at that time, the primary obstacle was the cost associated with the relocation of that facility.
Currently, the City is not doing anything with planning this site since the EPSP was shelved last year. We are requesting that planning for this area be put back on the city’s priority list so that the City controls the process including designing a project that enhances the neighborhood and provides community benefits (like El Charro Road and recreation amenities) far in excess of what the City could normally require. If planning is prioritized, it will probably take two years to refine the plan, come up with a more detailed phasing/infrastructure plan and receive final Council approval. The project many also go to a public vote. Once the rezoning is accomplished (through final Council approval or public vote), it will take approximately one year for building permit approvals.
10 years of Owner effort to process a community based masterplan will end. Owner will have no other choice but to pursue approved land uses: heavy industrial (on the City land) and medium density residential (on a portion of the County land).
The EPSP was shelved last year primarily over concerns about the drought. There was also concern over growth in general as residents began to see the construction of many new units that were the result of the City losing a lawsuit over the City’s prior policy of severely restricting new housing development. The small minority of residents who do not want to see any growth are generally far more vocal in their opposition & City Council listens to them. Those who support smart growth in a manageable and well-designed manner are typically less likely to write letters and attend Council hearings to encourage the City to better plan for growth. Through our outreach efforts, we are trying to activate the supporters to voice their opinion.
Right now, Council needs to hear from those who are supportive of accommodating growth in a way that is measured, manageable and provides the greatest overall benefit to the community while reducing impacts as much as possible. We encourage you to visit our website www.progressplanned.info to sign up for updates, review additional project information and send a note to City Council to support the prioritization of planning for this area. We would also be happy to meet with any community members to answer questions and solicit additional feedback.