01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Michele Plunge stated that each member of the Council previously voted that a road was a structure and on March 13, 2013, the Planning Commission affirmed that a road was a structure Currently, a road is now defined as infrastructure Greg Wohlenberg stated that the citizens of Pleasanton overwhelmingly supported Measure PP in 2008 and he is concerned about new residents A diverse group has been formed to have Measure PP referended, they are well funded, and he believes they will exceed the required signatures in the next thirty (30) days Citizens will now have a place to voice their concerns about removal of ridges and hillsides, misguided projects, and light will be shed on how Council and staff made arbitrary decisions Their website is www savepleasantonhillsides corn David Melaugh expressed concerns that tonight's proposed action is inconsistent with the letter and spirit of Measure PP The substantive changes made by the Council at their last meeting were done without notice to the public The residents in his neighborhood object to this twelve/thirty-one (12/31) split and the new plan is inconsistent with the directive given regarding open space He referenced the definition given by the Municipal Code for usable open space under Section 18 84 170 Mark Piscaro did not attend the December 15, 2015 meeting, however he did read the meeting notes He did appreciate the compromises made with this development as the residents of Mission and Ventana Hills never wanted homes on Lund Ranch Road They conceded ten (10) homes, now there are twelve (12), which represents a fair compromise His understanding of former City Attorney Lowell's direction was that the Council could make determinations on Measure PP on a case-by-case basis Mr Piscaro's belief is that development in Pleasanton is dictated by the Governor and "Urban Habitat " He is amazed at the amount of housing in Dublin and can not imagine that any Council would approve that type of "stack and pack" housing in Pleasanton He supported the second reading and adoption of the Ordinances John Bauer thanked the Council for their public service He expressed concerns regarding the inaction of previous Councils to address the impacts of this proposed project Nobody thought Measure PP would divert traffic into his neighbordhood, and he understood that previous agreements were in place that got Ventana Hills and the Mission Park area to cooperate with Bridal Creek and the Sycamore Creek developments Now traffic will move from the Happy Valley area to Junipero No one in his neighborhood would have voted for the Measure if they would have known that traffic would be impacted on Junipero Kay Ayala agreed with the new plan as proposed, including the open space In the end, it was a lot of work and compromise, but it will be a beautiful development and in compliance with Measure PP She expressed concern over the threat of a referendum from neighborhoods who knew a road was potentially going to be placed through their neighborhood when they signed their community CC&R documents She supports the second reading and approval of the Ordinances Amy Lofland, representing the Ventana Hills Steering Committee, stated that the impact of traffic through their neighborhoods was their concern with the Lund Ranch II development, and the new proposed plan honors most agreements, plans, and compromises with City staff, Option three (3) splits the traffic from homes, with twenty-seven (27) going through Ventana Hills and thirty-one (31) through Sycamore Heights The plan is now sound with compromises from all parties and she supports the plan's approval Angela Ramirez, representing the applicant, affirmed that engineering was done on the Sunset Creek extension and the numbers remained the same A chart was displayed that was prepared several meetings ago with options regarding the connection It was decided to connect a twenty-four (24) foot road without a wall, "connection B " Open space was increased with the new changes and multiple City Council Minutes Page 4 of 6 January 5, 2016