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 Narum noted she believed that would be included the next phase of a motion as she <br /> believes those things needed to be addressed for both of the neighborhoods separate from this <br /> application and include them in the Council's work plan now. <br /> In summary Councilmember Narum supported the motion but felt a little uncomfortable about the split <br /> and the promises made to the Ventana Hills residents. Part of her says it should be closer to the 10 to <br /> 12, but in looking at this you know it is not necessarily the best layout so she is going support the <br /> motion. She agrees with Mayor Thorne that the Council needs to move this project along as there are a <br /> lot other things that the council needs to be doing for the business of the City and the people and this <br /> has become all-encompassing for the last couple of months. <br /> Councilmember Brown thanked the previous council members for coming out and congratulated the <br /> current council which she knows are going to disagree on this vote. She noted every member of this <br /> Council including Councilmember Pentin did the research, met with the residents, walked the hills and <br /> met with the developer many times. The Council really took this to heart that this was very important to <br /> our residents and struggled with the difficult decision they were going to have to make. She appreciated <br /> all that the council does even though she was going to disagree with them. She noted she was an <br /> author and signature collector for Measure PP and believes it was true that there is some split but that it <br /> was very clear in her mind when she collected signatures for Measure PP that it was protecting the hills <br /> and that nothing should be in the top 100 feet of a ridge. <br /> She noted the discussion about whether a water tank should be there because we need water tanks for <br /> City development and many members of the collecting group said no, we want pristine ridgelines so <br /> that's why she is taking a conservative view if you want to look at it that way. That if it's a 25% slope, <br /> leave it alone. If it's within 100 feet of a ridge, leave it alone, if it's meant to be protected. Pleasanton <br /> has very few ridges left in our town. The ones we have are precious so destroying them or carving them <br /> and cutting them up doesn't seem the right thing to do by building a road or structure or anything else. <br /> Measure PP was a modification of the General Plan. The General Plan is referred as the constitution of <br /> Pleasanton's planned progress and it does not feel to me that this is progress. Cutting through two <br /> neighborhoods no matter which way you go to get to a development site doesn't sound like a good plan <br /> from the beginning. Regardless if you put 10 homes there, 50 homes or 150 homes she would really <br /> like to see this be the last project that you cut through one neighborhood and then through another one <br /> to get to a the subject project. <br /> The only exemption in Measure PP is 10 units and when we try to bend the terminology of what is a <br /> ridge, or what is a slope, is it natural or was it that way before, it looks like we're trying to find a <br /> loophole. Cut and fill whether you haul it off or you don't haul it off in this case it takes 645 truckloads of <br /> dirt to build this road, this does not seem like protecting a ridgeline or a hillside to her. <br /> Councilmember Brown wanted to make for the record one clarification for the City Attorney that there is <br /> a way to call this a one off, an exception, for a grading and changing of a hillside to not set a precedent <br /> for future projects and requested the City Attorney make it a matter of record for them. <br /> City Attorney Lowell noted as he understood her point, that Councilmember Brown was saying that this <br /> would not apply to future projects and that the Council was going to evaluate future projects based <br /> upon their own merits and here you are saying that the impact upon the hillside is unique to this <br /> situation only. Mr. Lowell stated the council can do that, but on future actions he believes the council <br /> will need to look very carefully at this action and make sure that you can articulate very clearly why you <br /> may find differently in the future. He believes it is very important that the council seeks to act <br /> consistently and that they harmonize your interpretations of the general plan and actions and he <br /> believes in most cases they can do that, but it's something that they need to keep in mind. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 12 of 16 December 1, 2015 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.