CCMIN041613 - Laserfiche WebLink

Phyllis Lee echoed the comments of those in favor of defining a road as a structure. She noted while the majority of Pleasanton voters supported PP, only a few hundred would be affected by any type of road. She referred to the ballot argument in favor of PP, which speaks of a mile long road spanning the top of many of the southeast hills, and the rebuttal which also references the removal of 70,000 truckloads of dirt to create roads and housing pads. She asked that the Council uphold the integrity of PP and determine that a road is a structure. Anne Fox noted that the potential roadway connections considered for the Spotorno Area and North Sycamore Specific Plan are subject to issues that go beyond the scope of PP. She provided a map showing a significant fault line that travels through the Spotorno property and through to the flatlands and said that regardless of PP, there are significant geotechnical issues along this entire corridor. She noted that the Spotorno property lies outside the urban growth boundary and any road or other development would require a vote of the people. She provided several references to the Municipal Code that infer a road is a structure as well as language used by the then City Attorney when the first Hillside Plan Development Ordinance was drafted in 1975. She recommended that the Council place a moratorium on any development, place any clarifying changes to PP on the November ballot, on work in interim to develop the southeast hills specific plan that was envisioned in 2005. She stated that a 2008 analysis by City staff led the community to believe that Lund Ranch II had the potential for 10 units at most, which is now shown to be untrue, and said the surrounding neighborhoods feel they have been betrayed. Councilmember Brown noted that Ms. Fox was referring to a staff report containing an estimate that Lund Ranch II would likely provide 5, but no more than 10, units when in fact the project coming forward now suggests 40 or 50 units. Mr. Dolan said it was a hasty and crude estimate that is incorrect. Mr. Fialho clarified that Ms. Fox was referencing a 4850 elections report that accompanied the analysis associated with Measure PP. He explained that it was a very macro level overview of how the legislation would affect private property. Unlike the Lund Ranch II project that is making its way through the entitlement process now, the report was based on a general estimate and not on any GIS mapping of the property. It was not until a formal application was received much later that they zeroed in on the exact location of potential units based on the site's existing slopes. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio asked whether Lund Ranch II developers paid particular attention to the consequences and ramifications of PP when preparing their application. She noted that their original development concept had called for over 100 homes but has since been dialed back to roughly 50. Mr. Fialho explained that a slope analysis of the property revealed exactly how many units the site could support. Greg O'Connor held up an example of the maps used to collect signatures in support of PP, noting that it shows the cut and fill that was to take place on Oak Grove. He said he discussed roads extensively throughout the campaign and they were referred to in nearly every related document. He said it is less about legal definitions, which will tend to sway in the favor of those who seek them out, and more about the voters' intent. He estimated that voters were supporting no grading on hillsides rather than considering the definition of every word within the voter pamphlet. He said that the development potential of Lund Ranch II is obvious to almost anyone and doubted that staff was as ill informed regarding that potential as it now claims. Amy Lofland, Ventana Hills Steering Committee, referred to a letter submitted to the Council from the committee and Mission Hills Park representatives. She called attention to Exhibit C which is a letter from a professional engineer stating that he has never come across an instance where a road itself is considered a structure. She also referenced a conversation with an engineer who works for the City Council Minutes Page 8 of 23 April 16, 2013