SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Southern Ridge 3 �/ p L ik. 2- 697 \ \ , i \ . r N \ ______ 0___:_ _ __„ . j____ __. _ :‘,,,,,,._ ._ ,...., , .. „ . . ____.-----,--_ _ -- As shown in the ridge drawing, ridge #6 is the southernmost ridge of the project. Staff had identified the last hill of this ridge at an elevation of 580' in 2008. However, the actual last hill has an elevation of 513'. Staff agreed they had missed this landform in 2008 when they provided direction to the developer. Staff noted in their October 30, 2015 letter that this hill was small and perhaps was created when the water tank was constructed. However, this hill is clearly presented in USGS topo map above, which was surveyed prior to the construction of the tank or Sycamore Heights. The same hill is also shown on the site plan for the construction of the City of Pleasanton water tank (dated July, 1987) with an elevation of 518.1'. Clearly, the hill was not created when the water tank was constructed, instead it is a natural and original part of the landscape. In the December 1St, 2015 meeting, the Council arbitrarily decided to use the elevation of 580' for the last hill for ridge #6. Such a determination is inconsistent with the definition of ridges that has been voted on numerous times by Council and the Planning Commission. While Staff explained they didn't notice the 513' last hill when they gave the ridge definitions to the developer in 2008,the Council has no such excuse. In making the 580' determination, Council presented no basis for how this decision was reached; the decision was completely without any rationale other than being convenient for the project. The Council must strike the 580' determination and instead use the 513' elevation, which is compliant with measure PP, Staff report for PUD 25, and many previous votes on the definition of a ridge. Implications for Future Projects In conversation with Council members and Planning Commissioners, both groups related that the application of PP can be determined on a case by case basis. They stated this conclusion was reached in a closed-door session of the Council in 2013. In testimony on December 1st by Stuart Flashman, this concept was dismissed. Mr. Flashman noted that any decisions the Council makes now on PP definitions must in fact guide future projects and therefore should be very clearly considered by the Council. Mr. Flashman's comments were then echoed by the City Attorney who stated that future project proposals must work within the decisions and definitions reached on this particular project.