My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN010516
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
CCMIN010516
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/8/2016 3:40:52 PM
Creation date
3/8/2016 3:40:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/5/2016
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
Michele Plunge stated that each member of the Council previously voted that a road was a structure <br /> and on March 13, 2013, the Planning Commission affirmed that a road was a structure. Currently, a <br /> road is now defined as infrastructure. <br /> Greg Wohlenberg stated that the citizens of Pleasanton overwhelmingly supported Measure PP in 2008 <br /> and he is concerned about new residents. A diverse group has been formed to have Measure PP <br /> referended, they are well funded, and he believes they will exceed the required signatures in the next <br /> thirty (30) days. Citizens will now have a place to voice their concerns about removal of ridges and <br /> hillsides, misguided projects, and light will be shed on how Council and staff made arbitrary decisions. <br /> Their website is www.savepleasantonhilisides.com <br /> David Melaugh expressed concerns that tonight's proposed action is inconsistent with the letter and <br /> spirit of Measure PP. The substantive changes made by the Council at their last meeting were done <br /> without notice to the public. The residents in his neighborhood object to this twelve/thirty-one (12/31) <br /> split and the new plan is inconsistent with the directive given regarding open space. He referenced the <br /> definition given by the Municipal Code for usable open space under Section 18.84.170. <br /> Mark Piscaro did not attend the December 15, 2015 meeting, however he did read the meeting notes. <br /> He did appreciate the compromises made with this development as the residents of Mission and <br /> Ventana Hills never wanted homes on Lund Ranch Road. They conceded ten (10) homes, now there <br /> are twelve (12), which represents a fair compromise. His understanding of former City Attorney Lowell's <br /> direction was that the Council could make determinations on Measure PP on a case-by-case basis. Mr. <br /> Piscaro's belief is that development in Pleasanton is dictated by the Governor and "Urban Habitat." He <br /> is amazed at the amount of housing in Dublin and can not imagine that any Council would approve that <br /> type of "stack and pack" housing in Pleasanton. He supported the second reading and adoption of the <br /> Ordinances. <br /> John Bauer thanked the Council for their public service. He expressed concerns regarding the inaction <br /> of previous Councils to address the impacts of this proposed project. Nobody thought Measure PP <br /> would divert traffic into his neighbordhood, and he understood that previous agreements were in place <br /> that got Ventana Hills and the Mission Park area to cooperate with Bridal Creek and the Sycamore <br /> Creek developments. Now traffic will move from the Happy Valley area to Junipero. No one in his <br /> neighborhood would have voted for the Measure if they would have known that traffic would be <br /> impacted on Junipero. <br /> Kay Ayala agreed with the new plan as proposed, including the open space. In the end, it was a lot of <br /> work and compromise, but it will be a beautiful development and in compliance with Measure PP. She <br /> expressed concern over the threat of a referendum from neighborhoods who knew a road was <br /> potentially going to be placed through their neighborhood when they signed their community CC&R <br /> documents. She supports the second reading and approval of the Ordinances. <br /> Amy Lofland, representing the Ventana Hills Steering Committee, stated that the impact of traffic <br /> through their neighborhoods was their concern with the Lund Ranch II development, and the new <br /> proposed plan honors most agreements, plans, and compromises with City staff,. Option three (3) <br /> splits the traffic from homes, with twenty-seven (27) going through Ventana Hills and thirty-one (31) <br /> through Sycamore Heights. The plan is now sound with compromises from all parties and she supports <br /> the plan's approval. <br /> Angela Ramirez, representing the applicant, affirmed that engineering was done on the Sunset Creek <br /> extension and the numbers remained the same. A chart was displayed that was prepared several <br /> meetings ago with options regarding the connection. It was decided to connect a twenty-four (24) foot <br /> road without a wall, "connection B." Open space was increased with the new changes and multiple <br /> City Council Minutes Page 4 of 6 January 5, 2016 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.