SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

THE CITY OF {Ftip .:.,a�..a SLPPLEM_E,NIAL MATERIAL —„ iu ro II Wei I 111 . - a .I PLEASANTON?After Distribution of Packet Date �QJ MEMORANDUM Date: October 30, 2015 To: Mayor and City Council From: Brian Dolan?, City Mana er, through Nelson Fialho, City Manager ^ Subject: Response to Questions from llen Roberts about Implementation of Measure PP on Lund Ranch II Resident Allen Roberts has expressed concern to staff that he believes that their interpretation of Measure PP as applied to the Lund Ranch II project is incorrect in several instances. His concerns are related to the identification of ridge lines and what implications they might have on proposed Lot 32, the identification of ridgelines and what implications they may have on the construction of the retaining walls associated with the alternative access road connection to Sunset Creek, and validity of the case that the area of the site closest to the creek identified as manmade slope was less than 25 percent in its original natural form. The location of each of these site and project features is depicted in Attachment 1. This purpose of this memo is to address Mr. Roberts comments. Concern 1. The ridge lines above proposed lot 32 are not accurately depicted, and if they were, the home site on Lot 32 would violate Measure PP as it would be less than 100 feet below a ridge. Response: Lot 32 is a large custom lot (over 7 acres) with a proposed building site on a knoll at an elevation of approximately 530 feet above sea level. (See attached photos of Lot 32 and view of rest of site from lot 32-Attachment 2). Mr. Roberts believes that a separate land form directly east of and above the site (at elevation 600) should be considered part of a ridge which would therefore make the proposed home site for Lot 32 inconsistent with the required 100 foot vertical setback. (See attached photo of land form east of proposed Lot 32- , Attachment 3). Due to its somewhat isolated location as viewed from the valley floor and surrounding areas, and relative low elevation relative to the next highest highpoint in the land form (elevation 713) staff did not consider this location to be part of a larger ridge. It has not been designated as ridge on all exhibits shared in staff reports and public hearings since the project plans were submitted in 2011. However, staff did express some concern about Lot 32 in its report to the Planning Commission, stating that the home site on Lot 32 is 60 feet or more above any other proposed home site, and that it could be considered inconsistent with other hillside protection policies other than those imposed by Measure PP. The Planning Commission considered this suggestion and recommended that Lot 32 could remain, but that the proposed home on the lot be limited to one story. Staff notes that even if the knoll above