17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Marion Pavan From: Blaise &Amy Lofland Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 8:52 AM To: Brian Dolan; Marion Pavan Subject: Comments regarding Planning Commission Staff Rept. 1/23/13 and Exhibit A, Draft Municipal Code Amendment Brian/Marion, In reviewing the packet of information sent to me by the City for the January 23, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting, I don't believe the verbiage on the implementation of Measures PP and QQ into City Municipal Code with regards to Public and Private Streets and Roads is accurate. The Planning Commission Staff Report, 1/23/13, page 13, paragraph one, Public and Private Streets and Roads., and Exhibit A, Draft Municipal Code Amendment, P-12-1796, Ridgeline and Hillside Protection and Preservation, January 23, 2013, Chapter 18.70, Item E.3. have been embellished to include verbiage far broader than the minutes show of the City of Pleasanton Special City Council Meeting, November 27, 2012. After reviewing the minutes of the Special City Council Meeting,November 27, 2012, Exhibit A, Draft Municipal Code Amendment, P-12-1796, Ridgeline and Hillside Protection and Preservation,January 23, 2013, Chapter 18.70, Item E.3. verbiage would be accurate as follows: Such streets and roads would still be subject to the City's environmental and discretionary review and direction on the road's location and design to mitigate or preserve any environmentally sensitive features, however, in order to encourage that those connections be made, staff would rely on the fact that PUDs are required to comply with Specific Plans. Council still has the flexibility to determine whether the road is even of value to the community and can adjust its placement, but does rely on these existing documents for guidance. Mr. Fiahlo's comments and clarifications regarding Public and Private Streets and Roads within the minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, November 27, 2012 read as follows: Mr. Fialho said staff would draw guidance from the adjacent PUDs as well as any related Specific Plans in evaluating a project. Lund Ranch II for instance is bordered by sites with approved PUDs that assume a roadway connection on that site. Lund Ranch II has no PUD but there is a Specific Pan that provides very detailed discussion on how the roadway would be constructed. In order to encourage that those connections be made, skiff would rely on the fact that PUDs are required to comply with Specific Plans. (Page 4, paragraph 6) Councilmember Sullivan asked and Mr. Fialho confirmed that Option 3 would still involve a public process at both the Planning Commission and City Council level. Lie also noted the language acknowledges that such streets and roads would still be subject to the City's environmental and discretionary review and direction on the road's location and design to mitigate or preserve any environmentally sensitive filatures. (Page 5, paragraph 4) Mr. Fialho clarified that Option 3 is simply an acknowledgement that certain PUDs and Specific Plans exist. It still provides the Council with the flexibility to determine whether the road is even of value to the community and to adjust its placement, but does rely on these existing documents for guidance. (Page 6, paragraph]0) In addition, regarding public and private streets and roads; I would like to know what other specific properties besides Lund Ranch II, if any, or potential PUDs within Pleasanton could be affected (if developed in the t