11 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16 - Laserfiche WebLink

response to inaction by Pleasanton City government, and how he sees the same government trying to undermine the will of the people by re-defining the terms of what Measure PP meant. He pointed out that staff is telling the developer of this project to ignore the 25-percent slope restrictions with a pretense of man-made slopes, but in that process included areas of natural slopes greater than 25 percent in the process. He stated that with respect to the graphic that was shown, what was shown on the slope map where the olive trees are is greater than 25 percent. He added that ridges like the one leading to Lot 32 are being ignored and proposing that structures clearly defined in California building codes can be constructed on hillsides. Mr. Roberts stated that while the Lund Ranch decisions are bad, much more troubling is the implication that these proposed definitions will have on future projects which make Measure PP less effective at ridge and hillside preservation, and all of Pleasanton will have to live with the impacts. He noted that the definition of slope as proposed by staff requires discretion about which slopes are developable because it is not a workable definition. He added that with this project, that discretion can and probably will lead to construction proposals contrary to what the voters wanted. He indicated that staff decided where the ridges were in this project and then proposed definitions to limit their end points. He further indicated that these decisions were not made as part of a public process but instead were communicated directly to the developer who invested a lot of time and money before the public even got a chance to weigh in. Mr. Roberts stated that at the February 2015 Work Session, the Commission asked a very astute question: "What definitions are other agencies using?" and the answer is that no agency is using the definition of slopes staff is proposing — not locally, not in California, not any place. He noted that for ridges, other agencies do not decide in the back room with the developer; instead, they map the ridges in a public process and use that to guide where they develop. He added that for structures, San Ramon and Dublin both have definitions similar to Pleasanton's: structures are anything built on the ground or attached to the ground. Mr. Roberts stated that if the Commission decides to have access to this project through Sunset Creek Lane, it should ask the voters to weigh in as to whether or not they want an exception to Measure PP rather than somehow explain away that roads are not structures, and, therefore, retaining walls, which are structures in the California Building Codes, are somehow not structures as well. He pointed out that that logic is crazy, and the next step would be a house and a retaining wall, which is part of a road, are not structures either. He stated that Pleasanton has spoken loudly and clearly, all 20,000 of them when approving Measure PP, and asked the Commissioners not to marginalize their input tonight. He asked that they do not decide to undercut Measure PP by rationalizing that definitions will get fixed in the next project. He indicated that the time to fix it is now. Yongjian Su stated that he agrees totally with Option 1 and that Options 2 and 3 basically violate Measure PP. He further stated that he agrees with the earlier speaker that a road is a structure, no matter how it is interpreted, and as clearly defined in the dictionary as well as by other cities. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 17 of 45