01 - Laserfiche WebLink

years the people of Bridle Creek have made complaints about the representations made by Greenbriar Homes and, rather than building communities, Greenbriar would appear to tear them apart. He also shared concern that the Planning Commission violated the 1974 Political Reform Act regarding Measure PP, said he intended to file a complaint with the state, and asked the Council to disregard any recommendations of the Commission until the complaint was investigated. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS 17. Public Hearing — Continued from April 2, 2013: P12-1796, City of Pleasanton — Introduce an ordinance amending Title 18 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code to create Chapter 18.70, Ridgeline and Hillside Protection and Preservation, Development Standards and Review Procedures for development proposed in the Hillside Areas of the City Director of Community Development Dolan provided a brief review of the staff report. He noted that Measure PP prohibits the construction of residential or commercial structures on hillsides with slopes of 25% or more or within 100 vertical feet of a ridge, and provides exemption for smaller projects of 10 units or less. The implementing ordinance under consideration was first discussed by the Council in November 2012. The Council provided staff with direction and drafted an ordinance that went before the Planning January 2013. Both the Council and Planning Commission discussed the following: • Definition of slope - City staff, the Council and Planning Commission supported a conservative approach using a 2 foot slope interval that allowed exceptions for small topographic features such as mounds and gentle rises; • Application to manufactured slopes - The Council provided original direction that the restrictions of Measure PP should apply to manufactured slopes, with exceptions made for slopes whose modification could be documented. The Planning Commission agreed in principle but recommended that staff make an effort to map slopes in their original form rather than get tied up in an exception process. Staff feels this is reasonable and supports the recommendation; • Definition of "ridge" and "ridgeline" - After some discussion, staff and the Planning Commission support definitions similar to what currently exists in the General Plan, with additional language describing how to determine where a ridgeline ends. One member of the public recommended that the City undertake an inventory of slopes to be included as part of the ordinance. While the Planning Commission supported the recommendation, staff believes it would result in significant controversy and delay and would therefore prefer to prepare a slope analysis as each project comes forward for development; • Ridgeline setbacks - This issue was largely non-controversial, however the Planning Commission felt that the 100 foot vertical setback from a ridge should be measured to the top of the proposed structure. Staff believes this to be more restrictive than the language of PP and continues to recommend measuring to the building pad elevation. If the Council supports the Commission's approach, staff recommends including additional language to provide exceptions for small architectural features such as chimneys and parapets, as is consistent with definitions on height throughout the Zoning Code; The issue that generated the greatest amount of discussion relates to whether streets and roads are considered structures for the purposes of implementing Measure PP. The Council originally directed that roads should be considered structures and therefore prohibited in areas restricted in Measure PP but also suggested that there be exemptions for roads that were considered as part of a Specific Plan or Planned Unit Development (PUD) Development Plan approved prior to November 2008. The Council also directed that this should include an exemption process to allow the development of new streets to access City structures and certain landlocked areas. In discussions with the City Attorney, staff concluded that PP does not apply to City structures because they are not commercial or residential in City Council Minutes Page 4 of 23 April 16, 2013