11 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16 - Laserfiche WebLink

the concept was no hilltop mansions, and the word "road' is not mentioned anywhere in the Initiatives. He indicated that he still personally believes this was the intent of the voters, that they were not thinking of roads as a structure, and that it is still his opinion that a road is not a structure. He added that this is a hard one because this can be interpreted in so many different ways, and the most important thing is how it was presented to the people of Pleasanton. Commissioner Ritter stated that in an excerpt of the Minutes from the June 26, 2008 Council meeting, Karla Brown spoke on behalf of all three authors of the Initiative saying that "The Initiative is not Kay Ayala's alone, but that Ms. Ayala was one who wanted to protect Pleasanton's quality of life. She clarified the intent of the Initiative was to protect hills from development, direct development away from lands in generally sensitive features or with primary open space and to make the General Plan's definition of housing unit consistent with the federal and state definitions." It continues that "Councilmember Sullivan confirmed with Ms. Brown that the intent of the Initiative was to control construction of residential and commercial structures and not roads, and that may be on a 25-percent slope and leads to the conclusion that the intent of the Initiative is not to preclude construction of the Happy Valley Bypass." He stated that from the Minutes, it appears that the authors were out promoting it as "no hilltop mansions." Commissioner Ritter stated that the only part that was a concern from Commissioner Balch was the bridge, but the 24-foot wide road minimizes that issue. He indicated that he still believes the road should come out Sunset Creek Lane. He noted that the prior elected officials had great intentions, and that vision needs to be honored and supported. He added that the other big thing is the CC&Rs of the Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek developments, which the developers did a good job of communicating, and those residents knew what they were getting when they moved in there. Commissioner Ritter stated that he is leaning toward Option 2 but would be willing to work with Option 3. He indicated that he liked Commissioner Balch's idea of joining the neighborhoods and wishes something could be done somehow to get the neighborhoods to all work together again. Commissioner Balch asked staff if a motion to approve or deny the project would have to address the elements of the conditions. Mr. Dolan replied that the motion should indicate which of the options the Commission recommends and should also address the issue of Lot 32 that was raised; it should acknowledge inclusion of staffs supplementary memo that was distributed at the last meeting and also take action on the additional condition presented tonight regarding the man-made slopes. Commissioner Nagler inquired if Lot 32 needs to be addressed before the motion is made. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 26, 2015 Page 24 of 26