01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Katelyn Theobald, representing the third generation of Cox Family Stores, stated she has worked in the family business since the age of fifteen (15) and she wants to retain the neighborhoods, community feeling, downtown area, and County fair as they are in Pleasanton now She is a senior in college and she understands there needs to be a balance between the City generating revenue and the rights of citizens to preserve their community She opposed a big box store at Johnson Drive Bill Wheeler, owner of Black Tie Transportation, commented that he understood Costco had submitted a letter of intent to develop at Johnson Drive He expressed concerns that any tax revenue generated from this venture would be outweighed by the traffic congestion, pollution, road infrastructure, and negative impacts to existing businesses He believes that a Costco in this location would be a benefit only to the landowner and the City without concern for residents and existing businesses If a Costco is approved, he stated it would speak loudly about the direction of the City of Pleasanton PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS 3 PUD-25, GHC Lund Ranch, LLC— Moved to the Regular Agenda from the Consent Calendar (a) Second reading and adoption of Ordinance No 2133 approving the application of Greenbriar Homes Communities for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rezoning and Development Plan approval of 43 homes, as filed under Case PUD-25 — Councilmember Brown Voted No (b) Second reading and adoption of Ordinance No 2134 approving a Development Agreement between the City of Pleasanton and Greenbriar Homes Communities — Councilmember Brown Voted No (c) Adopt by resolution the revised CEQA Findings and the Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting program, and (d) Authorize staff to take appropriate steps to effectuate Council's intent consistent with the above approvals Councilmember Pentin recused himself from the deliberation of this item and left the Council Chamber A staff report was given by Assistant City Manager Brian Dolan who provided the recent history of the project and proposed changes A PowerPoint Presentation was displayed In regard to the site plan approved on December 15, 2015, the Council had expressed concern whether or not the slope was twenty-five (25%) or greater originally and whether or not it was man made Five (5) additional lots were proposed to be removed and lot thirty-two (32) was to be lowered to an elevation no higher than five hundred (500) feet above sea level The applicant provided a revised site plan based upon the new conditions At this point, staff is recommending adoption upon second reading of the proposed Ordinances Councilmember Brown inquired regarding the realignment of the road and if the Ordinance should be re-introduced for first reading Interim City Attorney Julie Harryman responded that even though the road shifted to the south, the proposed Conditions of Approval are still in substantial conformance with what was originally proposed in the first reading Interim City Attorney Harryman also affirmed that no retaining walls or structures were proposed in the subject area Angela Ramirez, representing the applicant, confirmed that no retaining walls will be placed on the Lund Ranch Road extension, that the revised project provides for a lesser area of impact than analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report and that her team was present in the Chamber to respond to any technical questions regarding the project City Council Minutes Page 2 of 6 January 5,2016