My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 062415
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
PC 062415
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:49:59 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 4:39:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/24/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Balch inquired what the true number is. <br />Mr. Tassano replied that it is somewhere between 500 and 550 <br />Commissioner Piper referred to the agreement with Ventana Hills and the City <br />Attorney's determination that it is not legally binding with the City and the private <br />property owner and stated that she understands why it would not be legally binding with <br />the property owners because they were not a party to that. She inquired why it would <br />not be legally binding with the City if the City was the one that wrote and determined it. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that this was a private agreement that was required between two <br />private parties and that the City was not a party to it. <br />Commissioner Piper stated that it sounded from Mr. Dolan's presentation that the City <br />sort of adopted that. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that this happened long, long ago and that he does not know what the <br />dialogue actually was. He noted that the City wanted it to happen; there was a <br />condition of approval on the Bonde Ranch approval that made reference to it and so the <br />City was clearly aware of its contents. He added that there was then this private <br />agreement between two parties, which does not legally bind the owners of Lund Ranch <br />because it is a different piece of property. He pointed out that the case in point now is <br />just the matter of if the City is still committed to the idea that it was committed to then. <br />Chair Allen noted that even though the fact is that the private agreement is not legally <br />binding on the City, the City did adopt specific plans and made assumptions in the City's <br />traffic model that uses the General Plan. She inquired if that could be changed over <br />time and if the assumption made regarding Sunset Creek Lane is legally binding in <br />terms of the private agreement. <br />Mr. Dolan said yes. He added that there have been plans that have been adopted that <br />follow the thinking of that agreement. <br />Commissioner Balch stated that he just compared the math on the traffic between staff's <br />Option 3 recommendation based on the description of the 10/40 split and Scenario 3 of <br />the EIR, and the numbers are not very different. He inquired if there was a reason why <br />Scenario 3 in the EIR is not being recommended. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that staff's impression was that Scenario 3 of the EIR gives people a <br />choice, so it is an estimate regarding which way they'll go; and Option 3 makes sure <br />people will go one way, and staff felt that the assurance of dictating precisely where <br />traffic would go would be better accepted. <br />Commissioner Balch inquired if City services, for example, trash, to be provided to the <br />new neighborhood were considered within that recommendation. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 12 of 54 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.