PC 032719 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Brown referred to Commissioner O'Connor's question; both Measures PP and QQ garnered enough votes to be over 50 percent, but Measure QQ did not receive enough votes to eliminate Measure PP, and both apply. He asked if his interpretation is that these are separate properties and how Measure QQ treats the concept of multiple properties being considered as one development. Assistant City Attorney Larissa Seto said the language of Measure PP discusses "exempt from this policy are housing developments of 10 or more housing units" and what is proposed is a project with 33 units. The developer has them coming separately and is proposing a development on each of the lots. With regard to Measure QQ, it adopted existing policies within the General Plan that do not specify the same 10 lot exemption; thus the exemptions discussed in Measure PP do not apply in the Measure QQ situation. Commissioner Brown said Ms. Seto's legal opinion is that the text of Measure PP talks about single properties but not combined development applications. Ms. Seto said this is an area where, ideally, the initiative would be perfectly clear about everything. But, as new issues come before the City, whether they are slope and structure and housing developments, we have to consider the intent of Measure PP as to whether it would apply to this project. Commissioner Brown said he was trying to understand the applicant's position versus staff's position. Ms. Seto said with the interconnected streets and shared EVA, staff sees it as one housing project, although she recognized this is the question before the Commission which was open to interpretation. Commissioner Brown said he presumes the road is not designated as a highway and is a City road. Ms. Amos confirmed the road is not designated as highway. Commissioner Brown asked and confirmed with the applicant that the gate reflected on page 21 would be an automated, unmanned gate. Commissioner Balch said in light of EBRPD's "all or nothing" opinion on the staging area at Dublin Canyon Road versus halfway to Dublin Canyon Road, he asked if staff could elaborate on a preferred location. Ms. Amos said the City's position is to have the staging area closer to Dublin Canyon Road for similar reasons stated by EBRPD staff related to safety and visibility. Commissioner Balch asked and confirmed that the staging area would be on the developer's open space property. He asked if there had been discussion regarding locating the staging area next to the homes and pointed to new Lots 3, 4 or 5 on the Urban Growth Boundary line. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 22 March 27, 2019 nia Subdivision Map law." He asked if all four of the single properties were as they are now as of January 1, 2007. Ms. Amos confirmed. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 22 March 27, 2019 project. She expressed the desire for her 80-year-old mother to be able to see the project completed and for her to be able to move back into the replacement home. She stated they are giving up two of their homes for the staging area, said they do not believe wildlife will be disturbed and believe the park will provide great benefits to the community. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 22 March 27, 2019