My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01.1
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2007
>
110607
>
01.1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/1/2007 3:04:01 PM
Creation date
11/1/2007 1:31:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
11/6/2007
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
01.1
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
dropped the lots from 8-15 feet in some locations, so the peak of the roofs at those heights <br />would be below the current ridgeline, which is a significant change, as well. <br />He said the fire truck issue appears in Condition 60 and it states that they would be eligible for <br />reimbursement if the Fire Chief determines that some other project would benefit from that fire <br />truck. There were many questions regarding geotechnical concerns and his consultant, who <br />actually lives adjacent to, and is familiar with the site, is present to answer questions. Regarding <br />the Callippe Silver spot butterfly issue, they are required in the mitigation provisions of the <br />project to go out and do additional surveys in order to determine whether or not it is on site and <br />whether or not it is the correct species. It is a seasonal activity and they want to ensure this is <br />done appropriately and timely, and they have provided notice to U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Dr. <br />Murphy was on site on more than one occasion and did an extensive review. This is an on- <br />going process and is set up in the mitigation requirements of the EIR and conditions of approval. <br />Mayor Hosterman opened the item for public comment. <br />Tom Gallagher proposed that the signal be removed as a condition of approval, that better <br />signage be put in to control the crossing at the top of Bernal and east of Kottinger and asked <br />that funds be provided for traffic calming of Kottinger Drive. <br />Karen Martens voiced concerns with the project, said they knew some time ago there would be <br />a development, felt the agenda as listed misrepresented what could actually occur. She asked <br />that the traffic signal be removed from the project, discussed the need for traffic calming <br />methods, questioned uncertainty on lot configurations and she asked that there be a final <br />document for review of specifics of the project prior to the Council voting on it, recommended <br />keeping the money for low income housing and locating them along with the custom home lot <br />development. <br />Megan Williams said she is directly impacted by the development and lives at the end of <br />Benedict Court, said they have a chronic problem with drugs, debris, loitering and people setting <br />campfires at the end of Benedict Court and Moller Ranch. She spoke of an incident on July 4 <br />and August 19 where police were called, spoke about increased burglaries in Moller Ranch, <br />asked what guarantee she had that Oak Grove would not become a gated community, spoke of <br />lot 51 as protruding into the open space area, said she recently had to wait 18 minutes in order <br />to safely make a left hand turn onto Bernal from Hearst, questioned what happened to the <br />proposed tot lot and park the developer had initially proposed and questioned why Kottinger <br />Ranch still did not have a community center it was promised. <br />Bill Rasnick said included in his statement were concerns of Terry and Jeff Mastotopoulis, <br />Dorothy and Roland Broaderson, Alicia and Robert Sheehan, Phil Stone, Jenine and Jeff <br />Nichol, and Sandy and Malcolm McNeil who could not be present to oppose the development. <br />He felt the addition of the trail head could add 100 or more car trips through Hearst Drive, felt <br />the project violates the spirit of the General Plan, said the EIR is flawed, approval by the <br />Kottinger Ranch HOA did not exist and said three people should never be able to decide the <br />fate of over 200 homeowners. He felt the only thing that makes sense is to have a second <br />access road which he felt the developer should be required to do and also cited safety concerns <br />and fairness to those living in Kottinger Ranch. <br />Allen Roberts said he was approached a few years ago by the developer who needed to have <br />an EVA and his property was identified as the best place to put it. They discussed the project <br />and he agreed to work with them on terms of what was to go into the agreement. They signed <br />an MOU and 9 months later they had a contract. They met all terms of the contract but the Lin's <br />did not want to sign because they said they no longer needed it. One year later he was amazed <br />City Council Minutes 12 October 2, 2007 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.