CCMIN120115 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Brown moved to continue the item. She noted the public made it clear that they have not had a chance to thoroughly read and review it and included in her motion to request another option come forward as she believed the current option was very unpopular. Mr. Olson noted that he was not going to second the motion made by Councilmember Brown due to the fact that the Council had been working on this project for years and he believes it is time to make a decision. Councilmember Brown noted her concern that the HOA option, which doesn't violate PP had not been thoroughly vetted which was brought up by Mr. Lincoln. Councilmember Brown stated that while the Council had been working on the project for years she doesn't think that it's the best thing to rush with this decision. Councilmember Olson stated that the HOA attorney's letter pretty much removed any chance of using HOA property. Due to the lack of a second to Councilmember Brown's motion, the motion died. Councilmember Olson stated as he indicated at the last meeting, he believes this project should move forward and that he was not in favor of a 10-unit project, because he believes that such a decision invites a lawsuit from the developer based on what is called a taking of the property by the City and in other words, reducing the value of the property. He believes it would be irresponsible on his part if he voted for a 10-unit project. Councilmember Olson also indicated previously that he favors a more balanced solution to the traffic concerns and did not support the Planning Commission's decision to route all traffic through Sunset Creek Lane. He noted at the last Council meeting, the City Attorney indicated that the Council has discretion to interpret PP in areas where it is unclear and after that meeting he was provided with outside legal opinion that was received by the then City Council in May of 2013. He noted that opinion supports the view that was expressed by our City Attorney at the prior meeting and that we are now at a point where this Council must make a decision on this project and in so doing we have to use some discretion. Councilmember Olson noted while he said previously that a road is a structure, but the framers of PP indicate there was no intention to include roads and he believes this requires some discretion is required. He said that he did not like the previous site plan because the road and its impact on the property and PP were too extreme. He stated that he believes the modified site plan that the Council has before them is an improvement and has less of an impact in his view on Measure PP and can therefore support the modified plan. Councilmember Olson also stated for those who are disappointed that he chose not to follow Measure PP rigidly in this case, he felt he must point out that Measure PP has had a major effect on this project and will impact other projects as well. He stated it is not like Measure PP is not being followed in Pleasanton, it is. Mr. Olson indicated that these were his comments and he was prepared to make several motions tonight, but would defer to his colleagues. Councilmember Olson noted that he wanted to make essentially two different motions. MOTION: It was m/s by Olson/Thorne to approve the modified site plan which totals 48 units, 29 units exiting out of Sunset Creek Lane, and 19 units existing Lund Ranch Road; circulation, a condition on the project that circulation between the two neighborhoods be blocked in perpetuity with access only to pedestrians, emergency vehicles and bicycles and staff can work with the developer on this on setting up a more permanent and attractive kind of barricade; that in this case only, in the context of Measure City Council Minutes Page 9 of 16 December 1, 2015