Laserfiche WebLink
developing formal definitions of the terms "slope", "structure", and "ridgelines". <br />Furthermore, this Option 4 process could result in amendments to the Municipal Code <br />to reflect the guidance provided by a Measure PP petitioner regarding: (i) allowable <br />subdivision of a legal parcel; and (ii) that roads, such as the proposed Bypass Road, to <br />serve existing development, are not subject to the 25% slope grading restriction, as well <br />as other matters. <br />The primary benefit of this Option 4 is broader public participation in the refinement of <br />existing and controlling hill area development regulations, but this is likely a time <br />intensive process, subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and persons <br />involved must be clear that the regulations in Measures PP, QQ and other voter- <br />adopted restrictions cannot be modified (absent voter approval). <br />Recommendation. Staff recommends that the City Council proceed with Option 1. <br />Submitted by: <br />~~~~1~~~ <br />Michael Roush <br />City Attorney <br />~1 fN'll.`, <br />Brian Dolan <br />Community Development <br />Director <br />Approved by: <br />Nelson Fialho <br />City Manager <br />Attachments: <br />1. Full text of Measure PP (Save Pleasanton's Hills & Housing Cap Initiative <br />Measure) <br />2. City Attorney's Impartial Analysis of Measure PP <br />3. Full text of Measure QQ (Pleasanton Ridgelines <br />Initiative Measure) <br />4. City Attorney's Impartial Analysis of Measure OO <br />5. Letter from petitioner Karla Brown, dated June 28, <br />6. Analysis of the Impacts and Effects of the Save <br />Cap Initiative (Elections Code §9212) report <br />Protection and Growth Control <br />2008 <br />Pleasanton's Hills & Housing <br />Page 7 of 7 <br />