PC 022515 - Laserfiche WebLink

highest point on the home, then the home does not become such an issue for protecting the ridgeline. He questioned if the Commission wants to argue the height of homes or to not argue the height of anything in the future. Chair Allen stated that some people told her that they can see parts of this development from the Augustine Bernal Park. She asked if either story poles or an improved photo simulation would help. She indicated that she is trying to put herself in the mind of the voter who voted for Measure PP, and she needs to really understand what people who are at Augustine Bernal Park or at other areas of Pleasanton might really see on this whole development. She stated that she visited the site but did not actually walk to the top of where the road connection to Sunset Creek would be. She added that she would like to get a sense of if there is really a difference in what someone would see if the roofline or the pad is used as the measurement base. Mr. Dolan stated that story poles would be useless because the viewpoint is so far away. He added that there is a visual simulation, but there is a limit to its usefulness as well. He indicated that the easiest way to figure out whether something is visual is to go to the spot where the house will be built and look back, and if the Augustine Bernal Park is visible, then the spot is also visible from the Park. He noted, however, that the distance is still going to be so great that it will be difficult to distinguish between the pad and the roof. Commissioner Balch stated the EIR does have a picture of this on page 4.2 -10, and Mr. Dolan's summation is very accurate. He indicated that the spot is a very minor blip on the photo and is not significant. He added that 99 percent of the people will not even notice it. Chair Allen stated that she does want to walk up to the top where the road would be and look back. Commissioner Balch stated that part of the question is whether there is a precedent or whether it will have an impact on future statutes. Mr. Dolan stated that staff has looked at the Foley property which is not in the City limits and does not believe it can accommodate more than ten units on any part of that site because of Measure PP, so it would be exempt from Measure PP. He continued that another site is the Spotorno property, which has two areas that are designated for development: the flat land and the upland. He noted that there are significant stability issues with the hillside area, and it is most likely that development of that property will be restricted to the flat land, with the exception of five existing lots of record at the top that are not subject to Measure PP. He then stated that the Oak Grove project could come back, but that is a ten -lot situation. He indicated that the previous owners practically conceded that with their last application, and when staff required them to do an EIR on ten lots, they withdrew their application. Finally, he indicated that the only other piece of property is the Lester property, which is on the complete opposite end of town and not currently inside the City limits. He noted that there definitely has been some discussion, and it probably is the most likely to be affected by Measure PP. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2015 Page 41 of 46