My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2015
>
110315
>
11 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/28/2015 3:38:00 PM
Creation date
10/14/2015 3:54:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
11/3/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
11 ATTACHMENTS 9-16
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
270
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
Approval actually referred to, but again, those private agreements do not have a legal <br /> hold on the current Lund Ranch II project applicant and current property owner. <br /> Mr. Dolan stated that another thing to consider is that the original approval of Ventana <br /> Hills did anticipate connection of development on the Lund Ranch II site to connect to <br /> Lund Ranch Road, which is a dead end that goes into vacant property. He added that <br /> the staff report talks about this being a connection to potential future development. He <br /> indicated, however, that when Bonde Ranch came forward, there was some different <br /> thinking that actually made its way into some of the General Plan and Specific Plan <br /> documents. He noted that it was the thinking of the day and would really have been the <br /> final say on the issue about where this project is going to connect, until the passage of <br /> Measure PP changed that dialogue. <br /> Mr. Dolan reiterated and wanted to reaffirm that, as was discussed at length at the Work <br /> Session, the City Attorney has concluded that the private agreements that came out of <br /> the discussion about Bonde Ranch and the conditions on that project do not legally bind <br /> the current property owner or the City. He indicated that because this is not a legal <br /> issue but a policy question, the issue then really becomes whether the City is inclined to <br /> implement the previous commitments versus what could be described as new <br /> circumstances after all these years, with the new circumstances being: (1) the passage <br /> of time; (2) the dramatic reduction in units for this proposed project which used to be a <br /> 150-unit project and is now down to 50 units; and (3) the considerations about access <br /> relative to the restrictions of Measure PP. <br /> Environmental Impacts of Alternative Access <br /> Mr. Dolan stated that there was a fair amount of discussion at the Work Session that <br /> those who oppose the secondary access included in staff's recommendation cited that <br /> that was not the right thing to do because of the additional environmental impacts and <br /> questioned whether or not the EIR adequately described those impacts. He indicated <br /> that staff's position is that it does, it identifies what they would be, and staff <br /> acknowledged that there will be more environmental impacts: <br /> Biological Impacts. The alternative access scenarios require crossing the ephemeral <br /> creek along the southern end of the site and would result in the loss of habitat of the <br /> California Tiger Salamander and indirect disturbance to nesting and other birds and <br /> roosting special status bat species through the loss of additional trees. There will also <br /> be some fairly complex permitting processes required to put anything in a drainage <br /> channel in the wetlands: approvals from the Army Corps of Engineer, the Regional <br /> Quality Water Control Board, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife would <br /> need to be done. <br /> Geology and Soils Impacts. There would also be some geology and soils impacts to <br /> putting a road up the side of the hill to connect to Sunset Creek Lane. Grading on the <br /> side of the road has stability concerns, both in the structural components of the <br /> construction as well as long-term erosion control that have to be dealt with. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 5 of 45 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.