CCMIN040709 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Sullivan said that the spacing of these lights as shown on drawings seems abnormally close together. Mr. Kelcourse explained that it is the original design and noted that while streetlights further north on Foothill Road are on alternating sides of the street, these are all placed on one side. Councilmember Sullivan said that the southern end of Foothill Road seems to be less lit than is being suggested here. Mr. Kelcourse said that this was designed using the standards imposed at the time; lighting on Foothill Road has been installed in different segments as development mandates. Councilmember Sullivan reiterated that it seems as though the lights are spaced closer than one would normally find in a typical residential suburban tract neighborhood and seems excessive. Mr. Kelcourse suggested that the graphic is deceptive and clarified that the lights are spaced roughly 150 to 200 feet apart. Steve DeCoite said he lives in the very last house on this segment of Foothill Road, said he was not aware of this matter until today and wanted to go on record as opposing the reinstallation. He then clarified that he has no issue with the lighting but would agree with his neighbor in asking that the last three lights be eliminated. Fluge Schoendienst said the entire matter originated with one resident back in 1990, Mr. John Ennist, who lived in one of the four cul-de-sacs adjacent to Golden Eagle and who disliked the lighting. He argued that, contrary to what was stated this evening, many of the residents at that time were not opposed to the lighting and were unaware of any opposition until after the City Council voted on the matter. He said it was a bad decision at that time; in light of the neighborhood's growth and subsequent installation of sidewalks, curbs, storm drains, turn lanes, and stop signs that detract from a rural environment, reinstalling these lights for the safety of everyone using Foothill Road is the only responsible thing to do. Randy Ochs expressed support for reinstallation of the lighting. He concurred with Mr. Schoendienst regarding the efforts of Mr. Ennist and doubted that any other neighborhood in Pleasanton would succumb to the pressures of one homeowner. He acknowledged the comments of his neighbors who would like to maintain a rural feel and said that eliminating the last three lights seems like a reasonable solution. He noted the area's growth and progress over the last twenty years and argued that to selectively desire to keep an area rural while taking advantage of growth and progress made little sense. Mayor Hosterman closed public comment. Councilmember McGovern said she holds no issue with forgoing installation of the last three lights. She concurred with Councilmember Sullivan that drawings depict light fixtures that are much more closely spaced than anything seen in other areas of the community. Mr. Kelcourse reiterated that he believes it to be a misrepresentation and that site visits have shown the bases to be 150' to 200' apart. He noted that depending on the height of a fixture, spacing can be as low as 50' apart and that these lights, even when installed, will still be rural in nature when compared with other lighting throughout the City. Councilmember McGovern asked if the use of LEDs would affect the spacing. Mr. Kelcourse confirmed that it would, and he explained that to do so would add a design phase to the project in order to determine luminescence and ensure that the same IES standards are met. City Council Minutes Page 6 of 17 April 7, 2009