My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2015
>
121515
>
01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2015 4:01:18 PM
Creation date
12/9/2015 12:47:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
12/15/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
01
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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
Councilmember Pentin stated that while the FPPC stated that he does not have a financial conflict <br /> of interest in participating in the decision making of the Lund Ranch II project, however the <br /> comments made by the public at tonight's meeting indicated that he may have a bias regarding <br /> the project. He commented on the fact that his integrity has never been questioned during the 20 <br /> years that he has served the city. He believes that this Council should be above reproach in any <br /> decision making and because of this, will remove himself from tonight's decision regarding the <br /> Lund Ranch II project. Councilmember Pentin left the dais and exited the Council Chamber. <br /> Mayor Thorne asked how many units should be allowed in this project. Councilmember Brown <br /> stated that she believes that this project is a 10 unit project and proposed a 10 unit plan that <br /> doesn't violate the Measure PP guidelines and would solve the problem regarding traffic and <br /> hopefully bring the divided neighborhoods together. She noted that she has discussed a 10 unit <br /> project with the City Attorney and that he did not feel it would be an issue because there is still <br /> value to be had for the property. <br /> Councilmember Olson doesn't believe this project is a 10 unit project and doesn't believe it is fair <br /> to the developer who has worked on this project for over 5 years and has reduced the amount of <br /> units' over time. Councilmember also stated that he believes that the decision made should <br /> equally distribute the units. He supported 50 units. <br /> Councilmember Narum asked about lot 32, is it reasonable to require that all grading must be <br /> below elevation 500 and what does that actually look like? Mr. Dolan believes that there is enough <br /> space to build a home at the bottom of lot 32 where a driveway was proposed. This becomes a <br /> completely different lot than previously designed and can accommodate a two story home. <br /> Councilmember Narum said she is okay with lot 32 if the elevation can go to 500. She is okay with <br /> the 50 units as proposed; however expressed concern regarding lots 37-39. <br /> Mayor Thorne stated that the number of lots decided upon will determine what's to be done with <br /> the access points. If the project is restricted to 10 units, then there is no decision to be made. <br /> However, if the decision is made to go above 10 units, then serious consideration needs to be <br /> made on the number of units to be built. Mayor Thorne stated in April 2013 he voted that a road is <br /> not a structure and still does not believe that the purpose of Measure PP was to keep access <br /> streets to access legal developments; therefore does not believe access through Sunset Creek is <br /> a problem from the Measure PP perspective. As for the number of units, he stated that he can go <br /> along with that number except to allow lot 32 to be two stories as long as Measure PP is not <br /> violated. <br /> Councilmember Brown stated that it's awkward to have a housing count without a road access. <br /> She commented on lots 34 through 39 having areas of 38 percent slope currently, which is over <br /> 25 percent and is within a 100 feet of a ridge. She doesn't believe the lots in question should be <br /> included, which will reduce the size of the project as well as the impact of the community. <br /> Council and staff briefly discussed the creek, soil erosion, mud slides and slope protection. <br /> Mayor Thorne stated that he does not believe a road is a structure, however does believe a house <br /> is and can agree to take the three units out if the lots were 25 percent or greater in order to <br /> stabilize the hill. Mayor Thorne made that statement into a Motion. The Motion was not supported <br /> by Councilmember Olson. Councilmember Brown stated agreeing with the motion is dependent <br /> on the access road. Councilmember Olson believes that the lots in question need to be developed <br /> and if not developed, it will not create a pleasant view and can have potential negative impact <br /> such as mud slides. He said that while he believes having been against Measure PP that a road is <br /> a structure and voted that way as a planning commissioner. He said he cannot go against 60% of <br /> the voters who did vote for PP. He shared the research he had done to conclude that a road is a <br /> City Council Minutes Page 10 of 15 November 17, 2015 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.