Laserfiche WebLink
their mouths are and approve some sort of tax measure with which the city can purchase this land from the <br /> developers, thereby ensuring it is never developed. <br /> Councilmember Narum asked if a certified BR would be required to place a definitive question such as a tax <br /> issue on the ballot. <br /> Ms. Seto explained that it there would have to be some study into the uses of interest, whether they be no <br /> develop or parks and recreational facilities. Typically, however, funding decisions are subject to the environmental <br /> review. <br /> George Bowen applauded the Council for its decision at the last meeting. He estimated that the vast majority of <br /> voters are opposed to any more major development in Pleasanton. With the 1,800 units already approved, not to <br /> mention the 8,800 units recently approved in Dublin, traffic and school will remain critical issues even once the <br /> drought ends. He asked that the Council either consider keeping with its plan for a ballot measure or to place <br /> restrictions on resuming the process that are much broader than just water. <br /> Janice Mu!hall expressed concern over how upcoming development here and in Dublin will impact local hospitals. <br /> Mayor Thorne closed public comment. <br /> MOTION: It was m/s by Thorne/Pentin to direct staff to prepare a resolution halting the East Pleasanton Specific <br /> Plan EIR and planning process, including any further meetings of the Task Force, and stating that any future <br /> consideration of resuming the project will be undertaken as part of the Council's regular priority setting process. <br /> Motion passed by the following vote: <br /> AYES: Councilmembers Brown, Narum, Pentin, Mayor Thome <br /> NOES: None <br /> ABSENT: None <br /> RECUSED: Councilmember Olson <br /> Councilmember Olson returned to the dais. <br /> 24. CONTINUED Public Hearing: P14-1186, Gary Monzo, Appellant; Nagib Haddad, Applicant— (1) Consider <br /> an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval for Design Review to construct an approxmately 6,841- <br /> square-foot two-story custom home and related landscape and site improvements, (2) consider approval of <br /> a Growth Management Agreement for 8019 Golden Eagle Way <br /> Planning Manager Weinstein presented the staff report and project summary, stating that the applicant has <br /> proposed to construct a 6,841 square-foot home not including garage. The first floor encompasses approximately <br /> 4,300 square-feet with the the second story being setback and having a footprint equal to approximately 60% of <br /> the first floor. The project site is located within the Golden Eagle community on a little over 1 acre located on the <br /> west side of Golden Eagle Road. The site includes mature vegetation including willow and oak trees as well as a <br /> natural swale along the northern boundary of the site. The slope is relatively modest along the easterly or front <br /> portion of the site but does escalate somewhat significantly to approximately 25% towards the rear of the site. <br /> Homes in the Golden Eagle community range from about 3,400 square feet to just under 10,000 square feet. <br /> Development on this site is governed by the Golden Eagle Design Guidelines which establish the recommended <br /> parameters for new•residential construction and include a recommended building envelope for each lot. The <br /> proposed project incorporates Italian-type architectural elements that are generally in keeping with the sort of <br /> ecclectic architecture seen at Golden Eagle. Grading for the project is a little less than 24,000 square feet or <br /> about 50% of the project site. <br /> Mr. Weinstein noted the project site relative to the appellant's property and home, which is located immediately to <br /> the south. The appellant has raised a number of issues, some of which were evaluated as far back as the <br /> preliminary review of the project. - <br /> The appellant has suggested that the proposed grading and the site and second-story massing are not in keeping <br /> with the intent of the Design Guidelines. The•Design Guidelines state that grading should not exceed 40% of the <br /> site unless approved by the city and homeowner's association (HOA). Mr. Weinstein emphasized the importance <br /> City Council Minutes Page 5 of 15 June 2, 2015 <br />