My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2015
>
121515
>
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
>
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/16/2015 1:26:09 PM
Creation date
12/11/2015 2:21:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
12/15/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
146
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
are the legal rules. He added that had Lund Ranch II had an approved PUD with a filed <br /> Vesting Tentative Tract Map, then the City would really be in a bind. <br /> Commissioner Narum commented that the Commission would not be having this <br /> discussion then. <br /> Chair Blank agreed; however, since Lund Ranch II does not have a Vesting Tentative <br /> Map, one option is to do what Oak Grove did of having only ten units, and nobody <br /> would object to it. He indicated that he thinks it would be very difficult to oppose ten <br /> units being built in Lund Ranch II; yet it would add traffic to that one connector street, <br /> and he understands that. He added that the assumption is that the entirety of the Lund <br /> Ranch project would be dumped into those streets, and that is not necessarily the only <br /> option. He noted that he is not saying it is right or that it is easy. He reiterated that he <br /> does not know how to reconcile what this says with all the other things. <br /> Commissioner Pearce stated that this is difficult because there are so many challenges. <br /> She noted that when the Commission ends up having to deal with neighborhood <br /> disputes, and this is a neighborhood dispute on a much more global scale, the <br /> Commission wants to make everybody happy and make this right for everybody, but it <br /> cannot do that. <br /> Commissioner Pearce stated that her original thought was to go to the intent, which was <br /> everyone's original thought. She noted, however, half the people instrumental in <br /> Measure PP is saying a road is a structure, and the other half is saying it is not; half the <br /> people in the room who voted for Measure PP is saying it is a structure, and half of the <br /> people who also voted for it is saying it is not; saying that was not my intent, and saying <br /> that was my intent. She indicated that she cannot go by intent anymore, and she did <br /> not know how to do that; so she had to look at the text and at the Municipal Code. She <br /> noted that that is what she has, and it seems to her that, after having read everything, <br /> the definition of structure in the Municipal Code would have said it excludes roads like it <br /> excludes access drives and walks; it would have been excluded from the definition of a <br /> structure. She stated that she would be happy to have that conversation in the future <br /> about altering the definition of a structure in the Municipal Code, but that would be a <br /> different conversation. <br /> Commissioner Pearce stated that she is really sorry and that she thinks it is unfortunate <br /> about the promises made and that there are unforeseen consequences, but there are <br /> consequences. She indicated that she cannot jerry-rig this to get around the <br /> consequences and that she is sorry that she cannot do it. She noted that <br /> Commissioner Olson was correct that this is a traffic conversation more than anything <br /> else; this is a Lund Ranch traffic conversation; this is a golf course traffic conversation. <br /> Commissioner Pearce stated that she would like to address the traffic issues. She <br /> noted that she keeps hearing from people in Junipero Street and Independence Drive <br /> about the traffic, and she would rather have that conversation in the future. She <br /> indicated that she has been reading this over and over, and she cannot get to the point <br /> PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 13, 2013 Page 29 of 35 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.