Laserfiche WebLink
In the area of what was lot 32 in the previous plan, the Council also failed to designate what is clearly a <br /> ridge as a ridge. While the Council did make the correct decision and moved lot 32 below 500 ft. in <br /> elevation,the decision not to designate this as a ridge has troublesome implications for future projects. <br /> .' <br /> • r.tS-yam ,„, .,Y. {��.�• T - <br /> In the evaluation of this project and those in the future. Staff and the Council should have clearly stated <br /> criteria for defining PP terms and to abide by those definitions. In the case of ridges, Staff generated the <br /> criteria, but the Council failed to follow it and instead arbitrarily excluded what most citizens would <br /> clearly identify as ridges from being governed by PP. It's also disconcerting that during the discussion <br /> of December 15th, Staff suggested that perhaps a different definition of a ridge could be used to allow <br /> the development to proceed. The citizens of Pleasanton should be very concerned that their hillside <br /> protection initiative is being subverted to allow development where none is allowed by PP. <br /> Conclusion <br /> The roadway in the area of lots 29-33 (as designated in the December 18th plan) must be relocated to the <br /> original location and the area of the 25% slope must be maintained free of structures and minimal <br /> grading, as specified in Condition of Approval 1(f). Furthermore, the Council must recognize the <br /> southern ridge as extending down to an elevation of 515' and also designate the ridge above lot 32 as a <br /> ridge. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Allen Roberts <br />