SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Karen Gonzales From: Maria Lara on behalf of Mayor and City Council fds� Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 12:00 PM ---- - To: Pleasanton City Clerk; Maria Hoey rev!UOcf ,0 the City Council Subject: FW: Measure PP ilfte? r ist(ihljtion if Packet Maria Lara Assistant to the City Manager (925)931-5009 City of Pleasanton P.O. Box 520 Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802 www.pleasantonrecycles.org From: Matt Sullivan [ Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:54 AM To: Mayor and City Council; Nelson Fialho Subject: Measure PP Dear Mayor and Council, As a former City Councilmember that was deeply involved with Measure PP, I wanted to provide my perspective and recommendations regarding the issues you will be considering tonight. I believe roads should be considered structures and therefore subject to the limitations of PP. The former Council (which included Mayor Thorne and Councilmember Cook-Kallio) unanimously made this determination in November of 2012, and the current Planning Commission also supported this 5-0. I believe the intent of PP is to restrict construction of homes and roads on greater than 25% slopes or within 100' of a ridge, and the regulations adopted by the Council should be consistent with this intent. I am aware of an alternative proposal where a road could be determined as "infrastructure" and General Plan Policy 21 could be strengthened to limit roads on ridgetops, however after considerable contemplation of this option, my concern is that any City Council could change this policy with three votes and allow roads on ridges. I believe this would undermine Measure PP and the will of the people. Despite this, 1 believe that the city made a commitment to the Happy Valley Bypass Road and that it is a traffic mitigation for the golf course developed by the city. This mitigation was also the basis of a favorable lawsuit decision over construction of the golf course for the city. Since the construction of the golf course preceded Measure PP, this mitigation to the project should be allowed when developer funding is available. Since a portion of the Bypass Road route may lie outside both the City and County Urban Growth Boundaries, an evaluation should be performed and appropriate action taken consistent with our General Plan and County Measure D to resolve any conflicts (including potentially a vote of the people). Regarding the Lund Ranch II development, the strict interpretation of PP is such that a road could not be built into the development from Sunset Creek Lane due to slopes in excess of 25%. In addition, a previous City Council made an agreement with the Ventana Hills Steering Committee that the permaient access to Lund t