My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2015
>
121515
>
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
>
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/16/2015 1:26:09 PM
Creation date
12/11/2015 2:21:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
12/15/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
146
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
not have it fought out in front of the Planning Commission after he has already put a lot <br /> of work into developing a proposal. He added that if he were a citizen and cared about <br /> ridgeline protection, he would not want to have to come and fight every application. He <br /> stated that the fight should be done now, once, so everybody knows where they stand; <br /> then applications can go forward because developers would know what a ridge is, and <br /> citizens will not have to come and battle every application. <br /> Justin Brown, representing a number of Mission Hills residents, stated that he just <br /> wanted to speak in favor of the proposal from the City to exclude roads as structures <br /> and not take the ultra-conservative approach. He indicated that the General Plan, <br /> which governs the Planning Commission, refers to roads as part of the transportation <br /> infrastructure, and "infrastructure" means below the structure. He deferred to legal <br /> counsel for the definition of"structure" and noted that the basic dictionary definition of <br /> "structure" implies that a structure is a building for accommodation; it does not make <br /> reference to roads. He agreed that infrastructure certainly includes roads, beneath the <br /> structure and interconnecting the components that make up the community. <br /> Mr. Brown stated that he does not believe it was the intention of the voters, in voting for <br /> Measures PP and QQ, that roads would be considered a structure. He added that if <br /> Measure PP meant for roads to be a structure, it would have specified and spelled it out <br /> in the Measure before the general public. <br /> Cindy McGovern, former City Councilmember, stated that, first of all, the reason why <br /> Measure PP was actually put on the ballot in the beginning was because of Oak Grove <br /> at one point, plus saving the scenic hillsides. She noted that the road was one mile long <br /> and actually cut 40 feet off the ridgeline in some places, and this was deemed <br /> inappropriate by the people putting the Measure together as it was going through <br /> sensitive areas and against the idea of clustering homes the way the General Plan talks <br /> about. <br /> Ms. McGovern stated that she has true concerns about possible unintended <br /> consequences if roads are deemed non-structures. She indicated that, first of all, she <br /> thinks the loss of the protection of Measure PP, if the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) is <br /> overturned, is a really major thing that needs to be considered. She noted that the City <br /> lost its housing cap with State law changes, and the same thing can happen with the <br /> UGB. She added that this is not just these two pieces of property being talking about <br /> but multiple pieces of properties with ridgelines and scenic hills. She indicated that she <br /> thinks the use of the roads to grade 25-percent or greater slopes to get to flatter areas <br /> for property development through sensitive areas is something everyone needs to <br /> consider, what that really means and what that could really do to the hillsides and the <br /> elongation of roads. She added that the use of roads to go over ridgelines and into <br /> valleys to build and flatten areas with the protections that are mentioned by staff are <br /> really not safeguards, and that is because they are not a vote of the people. She stated <br /> that these can be changed by three members of the Council, and developments can be <br /> approved by three members of the Council; but the true protection comes in <br /> PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 13, 2013 Page 11 of 35 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.