Laserfiche WebLink
Commission has over how they are interpreted may be misguided as it appears like <br />people are more concerned about the project's direct impact on their neighborhoods. <br />Mr. Inderbitzen stated that in relation to the discussion questions in the staff report, <br />residential and commercial structures mean streets. He noted that it is not obvious to <br />him, but he suspects that it is also not an obvious interpretation by a lot of people in the <br />lay public who would read that Initiative. He added that he frankly does not think the <br />Commission has to make that interpretation, that it is just as open to the interpretation <br />that it does not apply to streets, and that it gives the Commission an opportunity to <br />avoid a lot of potential missteps and unintended consequences as this property and <br />maybe others come forward in the future. <br />Mr. Inderbitzen stated that he thinks the overall intended purpose of Measure PP, at <br />least the way the public would have interpreted it, is that it had to do with views of the <br />ridgelines, and there are lots of roads and trails and access ways that can be put across <br />properties that have no impact on the views of the public throughout the City. He noted <br />that getting to the Foleys' 500 and some odd acres behind the Lund Ranch will require a <br />road or a trail, and if roads are prohibited because of Measure PP, that may not be <br />possible; it may even not be possible to get to a park that somebody might choose to <br />improve on some other piece of property. He continued, however, that just to allow a <br />roadway to get to either a developable residential site or a commercial site or to a park <br />and to have to get there through some strained interpretation that relies on a ranch road <br />that somebody put in 20 years ago or 200 years ago is unnecessary. <br />Mr. Inderbitzen stated that another point he would like to make is that he finds it <br />interesting that the approach taken to try to interpret these guidelines is one that looks <br />solely at this piece of property and, to a large extent, ignores Measure QQ which was <br />also approved by the members of the public. He indicated that he thinks the <br />Commission has the mandate to reconcile the policies in both those Initiatives as well <br />as the other policies in the General Plan. He added that his view would be that when all <br />those things are brought together, there is an intent to really protect views of the main <br />ridge in Pleasanton, the other ridges in Pleasanton, and the southeast hills, and not <br />necessarily to focus sort of myopically on individual pieces of property and come up with <br />these tortured interpretations of how grading would be managed there to allow the <br />property to develop. He stated that it might work for the Meyer family and he hopes it <br />does because the Meyers deserve to be able to develop their property; however, this <br />sets a precedent for other pieces of property in the future. <br />Mr. Meyer stated that the issues raised tonight regarding Measures PP and QQ, traffic, <br />foliage, drainage, and how streets are to be treated relative to the Measures and to <br />crossing more jurisdiction and open space lines will have to be picked up in the <br />Environmental Impact Report and that he does not have a problem with that. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 14, 2012 Page 23 of 35 <br />