My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
08 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2015
>
120115
>
08 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/24/2015 11:46:19 AM
Creation date
11/12/2015 11:12:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
12/1/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
08 ATTACHMENTS 9-16
NOTES
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM 11-3-2015 MEETING
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
Mr. Frost stated that he should probably not have used the word "build" because "build" <br /> automatically infers that doing a structure. He noted that the word "construct" goes right <br /> down the same path again as both the words "structure" and "construct" come from the <br /> Latin "structura." He concluded that he would then come back to this same thing that to <br /> have a structural defect, there must be a structure. He indicated that if one does not <br /> support Measure PP and accept that a road is a structure by definition, then this is <br /> going to lead down a very bad path for the community. He emphasized that the <br /> community should not go there; people should stand up and say that a road is a <br /> structure, and therefore, a road cannot be built. <br /> Bill Spain stated that he is a 26-year Pleasanton resident, referred to Mr. Dolan's <br /> statement that there was a private agreement between Ventana Hills and Bonde Ranch. <br /> He indicated that it was not a private agreement, that Brian Swift, Planning Director at <br /> that time, worked very closely on it, and that they had the opportunity to have that <br /> agreement reviewed by outside legal counsel. He added that the Ventana Hills <br /> residents do not share the opinion that the agreement is private, and it is not necessarily <br /> exclusive to the discussions with Bonde Ranch. <br /> Mr. Spain stated that he supports Option 2 as it is consistent with previous agreements <br /> supported by surrounding neighborhoods. He noted that they have made that clear in <br /> previous attempts to define their position in front of the Planning Commission. He <br /> added, however, that he understands and accepts Option 3 as a suitable alternative. <br /> With respect to traffic, Mr. Spain stated that he did not see any reference to construction <br /> traffic in the staff report. He indicated that it is his position that construction traffic for <br /> the homes being connected to Sycamore Heights and Bridal Creek should be routed <br /> through those neighborhoods since this was also addressed in their CC&R's, and only <br /> the construction traffic associated with ten or fewer homes being built in a cul-de-sac at <br /> the end of Lund Ranch Road should be routed through Ventana Hills and Mission Park. <br /> He stated that they would like to have the construction traffic recommendations added <br /> to the developer's agreement and conditions of approval. <br /> John Bauer handed the Commissioners a document and thanked them for their public <br /> service. He stated that Measure PP, Save Pleasanton's Hills, and the housing cap has <br /> already been litigated, and a precedent has been set; the housing cap has been thrown <br /> out and has been ruled unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court, so the <br /> housing cap of Measure PP is gone. <br /> Mr. Bauer stated that there is a property on very steep hillsides in South Vineyard, the <br /> 15-unit Chrisman property, that just recently had its Final Map approved. He indicated <br /> that when the development agreement came off for extension in 2009, Measure PP was <br /> contemplated, and in the Minutes of the contemplation and in the precedent that was <br /> set, they acknowledged that it was on very steep hillsides, that exception was given to <br /> the Chrisman Ranch to build over existing roads, and that they had to extend beyond <br /> those existing roads and encroach upon slopes greater than 25 percent for the whole <br /> project to happen; and that was acceptable. He indicated that the document he handed <br /> to the Commission is Figure 4.1-3, page 70 of the EIR. He noted that the two red boxes <br /> on the document are what are being contemplated here as far as steep grades; and the <br /> area that will be crossed is less than the size of the seating area in the room. He <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 14 of 45 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.