CCMIN112712SP - Laserfiche WebLink

that as part of the Zoning Ordinance, the ordinance would go before the Planning Commission for a recommendation prior to returning to the Council. Councilmember McGovern asked and Mr. Dolan confirmed that the definition for slope used here reaffirms, rather than changes, the definition contained within the 1996 General Plan and Measure QQ. Councilmember McGovern said the issue of manmade slopes really seems to relate to the Lund Ranch II property, which is a sizable piece of land and calls for the development of nine homes. She said she considered something of this scope to be very different from a manufactured molehill both in terms of overall size and because it has become a part of the contour of the property, and did not feel it was appropriate to call out as exempt. Councilmember Cook-Kallio requested clarification on the staff recommendation on pages 5 and 7, noting that Weighted Increment Slope (WIS) is included in both options depending on which page one refers to. Mr. Dolan clarified that the reference was largely for discussion purposes and staff does not recommend the use of WIS or slope averaging. Councilmember McGovern said she posed the same question to staff and shared their written response with Councilmember Cook-Kallio. Mayor Hosterman opened the public hearing. Kay Ayala said they, whom she did not define, were supportive of staffs recommendation with some additional language. She asked that Option 3 regarding streets and/or roads read that streets and/or roads are a structure and therefore, covered by PP unless the street or road is intended to only provide access to a public park, trail, or similar facility and/or is covered by a previous Specific Plan, PUD Development Plan, or Development Agreement approved prior to November 2008 when Measure PP was passed. She noted that she had inquired about and accepted staff's definition of "similar facility" as something like a water tower. She asked the Council to clarify with staff whether the intent was to exempt only those PUD plans that were approved and built as opposed to those that had not yet constructed. City Manager Fialho said staff is proposing to grandfather those plans and development agreements. He noted that there is a bit of a legal question around whether a previously approved PUD on one site can bind the PUD on another site that is yet to be developed, as would be the case with Lund Ranch II. The answer to that is unclear from a legal perspective, but the City can rely on the larger Specific Plan, in this case the North Sycamore Specific Plan, which says that certain connections will be made. Karla Brown, Councilmember Elect and one of the Measure PP signatories, read the language of PP and quoted from the voters' pamphlet. She said the authors support staff's recommendation for Option 1 with regards to slope, with the addition of language explicitly prohibiting the use of the more generalized WIS method. She also indicated support for staff's recommendation regarding ridgeline measurement and for Option 1 with regards to contour intervals, but asked that any references to WIS usage be deleted. She disagreed with staffs interpretation that PP is unclear regarding streets and roadways. She noted the Pleasanton Municipal Code defines a structure as anything constructed or erected, which requires location on a ground, and that the California Building Code also recognizes a structure as anything built or constructed. She reiterated Ms. Ayala's request that Specific Plans and PUDs be grandfathered. She said the authors felt there was insufficient information regarding manufactured slopes and grades to support an intelligent determination on whether or how these differ from natural slopes and requested a field trip to Lund Ranch II before making such a decision. 3