Laserfiche WebLink
Allen Roberts <br /> 16 Grey Eagle Ct. <br /> Pleasanton, CA 94566 <br /> January 4, 2016 <br /> SUPPLE g L AlukifElRIIIAL <br /> City Council Members Provided to the City Council <br /> City of Pleasanton • <br /> 200 Old Bernal Avenue After Distribution of Packet <br /> Pleasanton, California 94566 / � <br /> a� /( <br /> Date <br /> Re: PUD 25 Lund Ranch Comments <br /> Dear Mayor and Council Members: <br /> The Council approved PUD 25 on December 1, 2015, made modifications on December 15th and is now <br /> considering adopting PUD 25 with the 2"d reading of the ordinance on January 5th. The action is to <br /> adopt what the Council voted on December 15th. However, the plan, as submitted by the developer on <br /> December 18th, does not comply with that vote and therefore must be amended before it can be adopted. <br /> At the December 15th meeting, the Council correctly concluded to remove lots 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 <br /> because they were on slopes greater than 25%. The Council gave direction for the lots to be removed <br /> and the area of those lots were to become "open space"with "minimal grading to prevent erosion." That <br /> motion was added as Condition of Approval 1(f) of the proposed ordinance : "Lots 34, 35, 36, 37, and <br /> 38, as shown on the Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan, dated November 24, 2015. reflecting 48 <br /> units, shall be removed from the project and left as open space. Minimal grading to prevent erosion <br /> shall be allowed in this open space area." <br /> The modified plan that the developer submitted on December 18th is not compliant with that condition. <br /> That plan, as submitted, relocated the road to the 25% slope area previously occupied by lots 34-38. In <br /> order to build a road in that location, construction of very large retaining walls, removal of 100 year old <br /> oaks and extensive grading would be necessary. While exact details of the walls required are not <br /> available from the plan, it is clear that measure PP would be violated with multiple retaining wall <br /> structures built on 25%slopes. Furthermore, the plan is not consistent with the conditions of approval <br /> specified in the proposed ordinance. <br /> • <br />