My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2013
>
050713
>
01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/1/2013 4:34:44 PM
Creation date
5/1/2013 4:34:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
5/7/2013
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
01
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
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
California Building Commission, in which the engineer stated that Title 24 does contain any language in <br /> which a road is called a structure. She said the City has over 20 years in planning for the road <br /> connections to Lund Ranch II. Bridle Creek and Sycamore Heights were built to accommodate this <br /> future development and their CC&Rs clearly detail all development possibilities to the east including <br /> Lund Ranch and the associated road connections. She provided copies of the Sycamore Heights <br /> CC&Rs and said that any claim of inadequate disclosure is inaccurate. <br /> Shareef Mandavi concurred with the Planning Commission's vote and Ms. Fox's and Ms. McGovern's <br /> comments. He disagreed that disclosure regarding future roadway connections to Bridle Creek was <br /> adequate. The information was presented in small, poor quality print on page 170 of a 180 page <br /> document and that Greenbriar in general promoted its home with an intentional lack of transparency <br /> that should not be tolerated in Pleasanton. He said he was also disheartened by the tenor of these "not <br /> in my backyard" arguments. He said the common sense interpretation of a road is that it is a structure <br /> and asked the Council to uphold the voters' desire to see no development in the hills. <br /> Raj Rajagopalan clarified his comments from the last meeting, stating that the connector road was first <br /> talked about in 2003 not 2005. He fully concurred with Mr. Mandavi. He suggested that instead of <br /> arguing over the definition of a road, limiting the Lund Ranch II development to only 5 homes would <br /> satisfy all community interests. He said he took significant issue with the reversal of staff's position and <br /> current recommendation that the Council manipulated the language of PP to suit its own purpose. <br /> Reshma Krishna, Bridle Creek, said that the focus should be on intent and both the arguments in favor <br /> of PP and the rebuttal to that argument contain clear discussions of roads. She said the primary intent <br /> is to protect the hillsides and roads are included in that intent. She reiterated that PP overrides all <br /> existing General Plan and Specific Plan provisions and can only be amended by the voters. <br /> Kay Ayala referred to the audio tape of the June 26, 2008 Council meeting in which one of the three <br /> signers of the initiative stated that "We agree with the staff report and (that) it would appear that a road, <br /> such as a bypass road that is intended to serve existing development could be built on slopes greater <br /> than 25% in that the grading for the road would not be for the purpose of the constructing new <br /> residential or commercial structures." When asked about the intent of the initiative as it relates to the <br /> Happy Valley Bypass Road, the speaker then said that "the intent of the initiative is to control <br /> construction of residential and commercial structures, not roads" and explicitly confirmed that it was not <br /> the intent to prevent roads that may be on a 25% slope. She said Mr. Fialho could attest to similar <br /> conversations with the signers the day before the election. She conceded that the maps used to gather <br /> signatures showed a road and said this was simply to demonstrate to the community where houses <br /> would be. She also noted that the General Plan contains satisfactory protections to prohibit a road such <br /> as what was demonstrated, regardless of tonight's vote. <br /> John Bauer provided the Council with the full text of the initiative, as signed by Ms. Ayala and Karla <br /> Brown (who was not then a member of the Council) and said they are the only ones who can truly <br /> speak to the intent. He agreed with the comments of Mr. Herz. He suggested two alternatives to satisfy <br /> the community — no development on Lund Ranch or construction of a tunnel through rather than over <br /> the hills to Sycamore Creek. He said that he considered roads to be public structures and therefore not <br /> covered under the residential and commercial restrictions of PP. <br /> Julie Lewis said the truth is that no one wants increased traffic in their neighborhoods but that growth is <br /> unavoidable and everyone must do what is fair to share in the burden. <br /> Belinda Zhu said the American Heritage Dictionary and defines civil engineering as the branch of <br /> engineering that specializes in design and construction of structures such as bridges, roads and dams. <br /> She said votes based on what is written and it was not written anywhere that roads are not structures. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 9 of 23 April 16,2013 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.