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
Commission move should forward with approving Option 2, which does not <br /> violate Measure PP since a road is not a structure, and it is the alternative that <br /> upholds agreements and understandings the City has made during the past <br /> 25 years. <br /> Ms. Spain stated that moving forward with Option 2 is the right thing to do for <br /> Pleasanton to ensure that it be known as a community with character. She added that <br /> while she would like you to move forward with Option 2, she would support Option 3 as <br /> a solution. <br /> Chris Markle stated that he works in the software development business and they have <br /> a law called Postel's Law which says "Be liberal in what you accept and conservative in <br /> what you do." He indicated that being conservative means interpreting Measure PP <br /> exactly as it is written. He asked the Commission not to make a liberal interpretation <br /> and say roads and retaining walls are not structures, threatening not only the hillside <br /> above Lund Ranch II and Sycamore Heights but for to six other potential future <br /> Pleasanton projects. He further asked that the Commission be a Community of <br /> Character and obey the law voted in by its fellow citizens. <br /> Steve Spinola stated that he is Pleasanton resident for 44 years, and Junipero Street <br /> did not go through then; the only egress was Mission Drive and Sonoma Drive. He <br /> indicated that Mission Drive was designed to be the main street; it had no trees on a <br /> parking strip so there was a clear visual shot. He noted that the cows would come to <br /> the corner from across the street and then go to the park with the big slide. He further <br /> noted that it was because of the big slide that Mission Street did not go through, and <br /> Junipero Street did. He added that Junipero Street was designed to go out towards <br /> Sunol Boulevard, and it went out the Mission Drive exit; Junipero Street was not <br /> originally designed by planners and builders to be an egress. <br /> With respect to traffic safety, Mr. Spinola stated that he called Sgt. Leonardo to come <br /> out and have someone at the corner because the rectangular sign in front of his house <br /> is actually a stop sign, and normally they would monitor that at the first week because <br /> everyone is late getting their kids to school. He stated that when he moved to <br /> Pleasanton, no one thought then that there would be 50 houses at the end of the road. <br /> He asked if it would be at 50 and would it keep going. <br /> Greg O'Connor distributed some documents to the Commission and stated that one of <br /> the documents is a fairly long letter written by Anne Fox, who was one of two authors of <br /> Measure PP. He stated that in the letter, Ms. Fox says that she used the word <br /> "structure," and what that means is all in that letter. He then made the following two <br /> points, the first being that the Lund Ranch II development with ingress and egress only <br /> from Lund Ranch Road as proposed by Greenbriar is the environmentally superior plan <br /> in the EIR. He indicated that he was also asked by someone if he could please explain <br /> to them why building a road up from Lund Ranch Road to Sunset Creek Lane would <br /> violate Measure PP, and in his opinion, there are four reasons: <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 26, 2015 Page 8 of 26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.