SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Pleasanton City Council —Adoption of Ch. 18.79 5/6/2013 Page 2 The drawing shows a ridge seen from the side. The ridge has two "peaks" near its center. On either side of the peaks, the ridge continues with a slight downward slope for quite a distance before dropping off sharply at its ends. Most people would agree that the ridge would extend to the points where it suddenly dropped off. Staffs proposed definition, however, would lead to the absurd result that the ridgeline would only extend over the area shown by the red arrow. There are many ways in which ridge and ridgeline could be defined that would fit with the definition in the Municipal Code and the voters' intuitive understanding of what a ridge is. Staffs proposed definition, however, attempts instead to sharply reduce what would be considered the ridgeline. This is not merely a theoretical problem. There are several areas, including the area between Oak Grove and Ruby Hill, South of Highway 84, that would be laid open to development by staffs proposed redefinition of ridge and ridgeline. This would have potentially significant environmental impacts, including growth-inducing, fire safety, traffic, and visual impacts. If the City wants to do this, it must first get conduct a CEQA review and then get voter approval. Staffs proposal to redefine structures to exclude streets and roadways is similarly flawed. The purpose of the initiative was to protect the ridgelines and hillsides from impacts associated with uncontrolled development. In particular, the measure prohibits housing units or structures from being placed on slopes of 25% or greater. In addition, it prohibits grading for residential or commercial structures on hillside slopes of 25% or greater. While the grading prohibition was limited to residential or commercial structures, the prohibition on structures themselves was more general. Further, there can be no question that roadways placed across hillside areas can do significant environmental damage. A chief purpose of Measure PP was to prevent such damage. Exempting streets and roadways from its provisions would run counter to the intent of the measure. Secondly, at the time Measure PP was put on the ballot, the Municipal Code already included a definition of structures. That definition included as structures "Anything constructed or erected which requires a location on the ground, including a building or swimming pool, but not including a fence or wall used as a fence if the height does not exceed six feet, or access drives or walks." Significantly, while the definition specifically excludes access drives or walks, it does not exclude streets or roadways, and streets and roadways (as opposed, for example, to infrastructure such as water, sewer, and gas lines or electrical conduits that are placed under the ground [hence infrastructure]) require a location on the ground. Further, access drives are not equivalent to streets or roadways. An access drive is generally considered a private driveway on private property used to access a specific house or facility. A street or roadway, by contrast, is a right of way used for general access.