11 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16 - Laserfiche WebLink

be placed on slopes of 25 percent or greater, and when it says "housing units and structures," it means there are other structures besides housing units. He noted that many definitions of what a structure is have been brought up tonight, but it is obvious that a road is a structure, and it is not appropriate for staff to conclude that a road is not a structure because that conclusion supports their recommendation. He added that the signers of Measure PP did not write the hillside initiative; there are sworn affidavits from the authors of that part of Measure PP that say they clearly and openly included roads when they were writing Measure PP, and, as a matter of fact, the catalyst for all of that was the hilltop road, the mile long road in Oak Grove, and they were very clear about that when they were collecting signatures on Measure PP. Mr. O'Connor stated that, as far as traffic is concerned, if Lund Ranch Road took all of the traffic from the Lund Ranch II development, Junipero Street would still have less traffic than Sycamore has today. He noted, then, that if traffic is to be shared, then this is a good reason why Sycamore should not be taking more traffic. He cautioned the Commission that its decision tonight will be the precedent and will define hillside development in Pleasanton for decades to come. He asked the Commissioners to support their voters by upholding Measure PP and recommend to the Council Option 1, which is the environmentally preferred plan as proposed by the developer. Chair Allen called for a 10-minute break at 8:51 p.m. and reconvened the regular meeting at 9:01 p.m. Christian Seebring, Attorney for the applicant, stated that he wanted to make a few quick points: 1. All the comments made tonight were about the dispute on whether or not a road is a structure. Approving Option 1 does not make it necessary for a road to be a structure; the question does not need to be decided on tonight or by the City Council. 2. It was stated tonight that since the agreement between the two neighborhoods, there has not been a single document that has contemplated Lund Ranch Road connecting to Lund Ranch. Just a year later in the 1992 North Sycamore Specific Plan, Figure A-1 shows the cumulative scenario of the anticipated projects at that time which would be developed around this specific plan, and Lund Ranch II is there, showing 150 homes with its primary connection to Lund Ranch Road and a secondary connection to Sunset Creek Lane. It is just illustrative, and there are not 150 homes anymore. 3. When talking about the agreement between two neighborhoods, it is important to also focus in on the specific language used in the agreement which was for the developer of Bonde Ranch to use its best efforts to obtain an easement through Lund Ranch II. That did not happen under the Map Act, and off-site conditions waived out 120 days, so the agreement has been satisfied where it does not exist. 4. One thing that has not been spoken about tonight is Option 3, the connection dividing the community. It is not just a road; there is also going to be a loss of lots EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 24 of 45