My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN120115
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
CCMIN120115
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/17/2015 1:41:16 PM
Creation date
12/17/2015 1:41:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
12/1/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
previous meeting. She pointed out that the same type of road was previously evaluated in the EIR, <br /> however, not at that exact location being proposed. <br /> Pertaining to Lot 32, Councilmember Brown referred to the staff report stating that the hill located <br /> behind lot 32 is at 600 feet, hence why it was previously mentioned to lower the pad 30 feet in order to <br /> obtain the differential between the 600 and the 500 as a 30-foot drop. Ms. Ramirez-Holmes responded <br /> saying that the applicant used numbers staff provided in 2009 and staff did not designate the 600-foot <br /> area as a ridge line. <br /> Assistant City Manager Brian Dolan stated that a member of the public made a suggestion that the <br /> ridgeline should be different and that comment was passed along to council with staff giving Council the <br /> option of accepting the original designation or agreeing with the new ridgeline designation. Mr. Dolan <br /> confirmed that the recommendation given to the Planning Commission and City Council did not include <br /> the exclusion of Lot 32, but rather raised the issue of whether or not they wanted to approve Lot 32 <br /> based on the ridgeline of other pads within the surrounding area. <br /> Councilmember Narum asked if the parking spaces are still in the plan on the Lund Ranch side leading <br /> to Sunset Creek based on the new drawing, to which Ms. Ramirez-Holmes clarified that there are four <br /> existing spaces located at the hammerhead at the end of Sunset Creek and anticipated to use these <br /> four for the trail and add four more at the staging area. <br /> Councilmember Narum also asked for approximation of when Greenbriar would be in a position to <br /> break ground in the growth management ordinance allocation, if construction was to be approved, to <br /> which Ms. Ramirez-Holmes stated staff has a recommendation of allocation in place, however, if <br /> council would like the recommendation of allocation made by staff change, Greenbriar gave an <br /> approximation of splitting the timeframe over a period of two years. <br /> Councilmember Brown reiterated information related to the new street configuration in the event some <br /> members of the audience were not able to properly view the slides previously shown. The configuration <br /> includes; 695 feet long, 245 within the 25 percent slope area, 645 truckloads of dirt to be cut/filled and <br /> maximum wall height of 6-foot culvert within 122 feet of walls. <br /> Ms. Ramirez-Holmes also stated that the recommendation was made by the planning commission. <br /> Councilmember Narum asked staff to confirm if there is a standard provision that the applicant will be <br /> responsible for if road and common areas are damaged during construction and also asked City <br /> Attorney Lowell to explain why it is up to the Council or legislative body to define the terms that are in <br /> place regarding Measure PP. <br /> Mr. Lowell explained that when Measure PP was being drafted, there were certain definitions, such as <br /> ridgeline, structures and how the slopes were measured which were ambiguous, unclear, undefined as <br /> was pointed out in the City Attorney's Impartial Analysis. As the City Council was appointed by the <br /> residents as the representative body for the residents, and the council makes it a point to keep abreast <br /> of all zoning ordinances and land use ordinances, therefore, its members are in the best position to <br /> determine the terms related to zone ordinances, land use ordinances, etcetera. Mr. Lowell also pointed <br /> out that if the issue were to end up in litigation, while a Court will arrive at its own ruling, it will give great <br /> weight and consideration to what the legislative body decides. <br /> At the conclusion of questions posed by Councilmembers to Ms. Ramirez-Holmes, prior to opening the <br /> public hearing, Mayor Thorne advised the public to comment only based on the revised plan currently <br /> being proposed as numerous comments had already been received regarding the project. Mayor <br /> Thorne also requested each speaker to keep their comments to three minutes. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 4 of 16 December 1, 2015 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.