PC 082615 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Balch inquired if the three road options, the two 32 -foot road and the 24 -foot road, all crossed at a 25- degree slope, and that the B Option crossed it by approximately 0.8 acre. Mr. Dolan said yes. He added that Option B's 0.8 acre would be the total amount of grading in the 25- percent slope area. Chair Allen stated that she would go first tonight because her decision has changed based on the new information that the Commissioners all received, but her decision - making criteria which she shared with the other Commissioners at the last meeting has absolutely not changed. She indicated that at the last meeting, she voted for Option 1 of the staff report, which was to provide all traffic through Lund Ranch Road, and the reason for that was because she assumed that the Sunset Creek Lane connection would require a retaining wall on a slope over 25 percent, which she felt was a violation of Measure PP, and since Measure PP trumps the General Plan, she could not support building the Sunset Creek Lane connection. She indicated that new information tonight on the road connection that, in fact, because the preferred road design is a narrow road that does not have a retaining wall, her concern regarding the retaining wall is now moot. Chair Allen stated that she wanted to share her perspective about the road as she did not comment at the last meeting about whether she thought a road was an issue or not and inconsistent with Measure PP. She noted that the question she asked Mr. Dolan earlier about precedent was only for the Lund Ranch project. She indicated that if she were sitting on the Planning Commission a couple of years ago and needed to vote on this, and the answer applied to every single project in Pleasanton, her answer to a road could be different, and she would look at every project uniquely as instructed by the City Council. She stated that she does not believe building a road for the Lund Ranch project, assuming there were no retaining walls, violates Measure PP for three reasons: 1. Measure PP does not specify whether a road is defined as a structure or not, and one can argue that if they were to be included, they should have been specified; hence, the Commission has the flexibility to do what it thinks is the right decision. 2. Roads are not consistently defined anywhere as a structure or not, and some of even the best engineers will define them as a structure, some will define them as infrastructure, and some as neither one of those terms. Therefore, since there is no definition, then the Commission's job is to look at the intent of Measure PP, which, as written, was to project the ridges and hillsides generally for the residents of Pleasanton to see the beauty of the hillsides, and then try to answer whether this road violates the intent of Measure PP. 3. The road is not in conflict with the intent of Measure PP for four other reasons: a. The general public cannot see the road in most cases; b. the primary people who can see the road are, in fact, the people that want the road, and those are the folks who spoke tonight in the Ventana Hills and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 26, 2015 Page 21 of 43