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
Commissioner Nagler stated that all those other circumstances are exactly what people <br /> have said: They want to be a city of integrity, a community where the Council's word <br /> matters, that they want to be able to tell their children that when they say something and <br /> repeat it, they mean it. He indicated that he believes it matters that the neighbors in the <br /> Ventana Hills and other surrounding neighborhoods, like good citizens and good <br /> neighbors, have gone to meeting after meeting and lived through decision after decision <br /> and have had both formal and informal agreements, and while, in the eyes of the law, it <br /> may not be enforceable from a court's perspective, that does not change the fact that it <br /> is an agreement; and in the exact same way that the residents of the Sycamore <br /> neighborhood have an agreement when they purchased their home that they recognize <br /> that that traffic may come through their neighborhood. He added that it seems that all <br /> agreements talk about where this road is going to be built are similarly existent, <br /> important, and represent what people culturally want to be as a community. <br /> Commissioner Nagler stated that he fundamentally supports building the road out <br /> through the Sycamore neighborhood. He noted that it may not be the environmentally <br /> preferred thing to do, but he believes it is within the broad intent of Measure PP and <br /> pays obeisance to what the community wants to be. <br /> Commissioner Nagler stated that he could also support staff's Option 3 <br /> recommendation because it is reasonable. He indicated, however, that he believes <br /> 10 is probably not the right number mostly because as he looks at the layout of the <br /> neighborhood, it could probably be divided a little more rationally if it were not limited to <br /> 10 homes. He added that if it were possible to support additional home sites, if they <br /> could be engineered elsewhere to make up for the home sites that might be lost by <br /> creating a cul-de-sac, because he is also paying attention to the economics of the <br /> project from the developer's perspective and does not know if 50 is the right number or <br /> if it pencils out, he could support a plan that still has 50 home sites while also creating <br /> this cul-de-sac. He stated that he could certainly support Option 3 as well. <br /> Commissioner Balch stated that after reading inches of paper and sifting through hours <br /> of meetings, he actually is still right on the fence. He agreed that both Commissioner <br /> Piper and Commissioner Nagler make excellent arguments to both sides of this coin. <br /> He indicated that he is not certain he can interpret Commissioner Piper's current <br /> definition of if a road is a structure because if he were building anything and goes back <br /> to when applicants were coming and asking to build a balcony, and there are no CC&R <br /> restriction or PUD restriction whatsoever, and the Commission grapples with the <br /> question of whether the balcony should be allowed, that maybe it does not fit in the <br /> neighborhood, his general thought is that the rules should be known to everyone. He <br /> noted that this does not help him here much either because, as Commissioner Piper <br /> points out, the rules for the owners of the properties later on, basically Bridle Creek and <br /> Sycamore Heights, whether they were fully disclosed to the buyer's preferred level or <br /> not, may be a moot point. He indicated, however, that the fact is that they were <br /> contained in the CC&Rs and the PUD and the conditions and there is a sign at the end <br /> of the road that says this is the connection point. <br /> Commissioner Balch stated that if he read what he considers as one of the rules, the <br /> rules argue that the road goes in, because he believes the City should uphold its <br /> agreements to the Mission Park neighborhood and the Junipero neighborhood. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 34 of 45 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.