My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2013
>
040213
>
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/28/2015 2:59:22 PM
Creation date
4/15/2013 3:23:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
4/2/2013
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Document Relationships
17
(Message)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2013\041613
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
Mayor and Councilmembers <br /> March 27, 2013 <br /> Page 2 <br /> In addition, the Spotomos object to the Planning Commission's recommendation that roads be <br /> considered structures for purposes of implementing Measure PP. Measure PP does not <br /> contemplate or require this. Measure PP provides that: <br /> Housing units and structures shall not be placed on slopes of <br /> 25 percent or greater, or within 100 vertical feet of a ridgeline. No <br /> grading to construct residential or commercial structures shall <br /> occur on hillside slopes 25% or greater, or within 100 vertical feet <br /> of a ridgeline. <br /> If they had intended roads to be restricted on slopes, the authors of Measure PP would have <br /> included roads in the language of the measure. Kay Ayala, one of the authors of Measure PP, <br /> confirmed that if they had "wanted roads in there, they would have put the word "road" in there." <br /> P. 15, Pl. Comm. Minutes 3-13-13. <br /> Measure PP does not require roads to be restricted on slopes, and City staff concurs. City staff <br /> "is actually recommending that the Commission recommend to the Council that roads not be <br /> considered structures for the purposes of implementing Measure PP." P.6, Pl. Comm. Minutes <br /> 3-13-13. Staffs position is well reasoned. See, Revised Staff Memorandum, March 13, 2013, <br /> pp. 3-4. As staff notes, the intent of Measure PP is to protect ridgelines and hillsides from <br /> uncontrolled development, not to prohibit roads. There are already ample protections, which can <br /> be used to dictate the location of roads when a project is proposed, including but not limited to <br /> Policy 21 of the Land Use Element. The Spotomos agree with Staff, that the City does not need <br /> to add more restrictions than Measure PP intended, when current policies support Measure PP's <br /> goals of ridgeline and hillside protection. <br /> We understand that the City must take steps to implement Measure PP. This obligation should <br /> be met, however, without adding unnecessary restrictions and layers of ambiguity into the <br /> regulatory process. We respectfully request that a ridgeline inventory be conducted prior to the <br /> adoption of the proposed ridgeline ordinance, and that roads not be considered structures within <br /> the meaning of Measure PP. <br /> Very truly yours, <br /> RANDICK O'DEA & TOOLIATOS, LLP <br /> / /i <br /> By 14' staria <br /> Nickolas P. Tooliatos <br /> C"%Documents and Settings\nhargissd.ocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK P361037 doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.