SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Subject: FW: Lund Ranch II PP compliant access options From: Allen Roberts Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 8:56 AM To: Mayor and City Council Cc: Brian Dolan Subject: Lund Ranch II PP compliant access options Dear Mayor and City Council members: SUPPLEMENTAL MATECTPd_ Provided to the City Council After Distribution of Packet Date The has been lots of discussion about PP in regards to Lund Ranch II Project access. I would like to insure the Council knows there are four options which fully respect the voters who instituted PP to protect the southeast hills and still build the Lund Ranch II project. Option A: Sole access via Lund Ranch Rd This option does not conflict with measure PP but is counter to prior Council commitments to the Lund Ranch neighbors. Option B: Limit the project to 10 total units The voters provided an option to all land owners who might be impacted by PP. PP restrictions do not apply to developments or 10 units or less. This allows all hillside property owners to derive value from their property. The developer has provided a letter raising potential legal issues with a 10 unit restriction, but the Lockaway case they cite has little in common Lund Ranch II. Lockaway had an approved conditional use permit and was denied a building permit due to Alameda County Measure D. Measure D specifically excluded application to prior approved projects. The Lockaway owner sued and won. For this logic to apply to Lund Ranch, the Council would need to approve a 10 unit project (which is exempted from PP) and the Building department then deny it because of PP. Clearly that is not the case here. Option C: Sunset Creek connection as approved by Planning Commission with an exemption to PP approved by the voters The Sunset Creek connection as approved by the Planning Commission crossed slopes greater than 25% AND includes structures within 100' of a ridge. The 100' ridge set -back in the area of the Sunset Creek road starts at elevation 515' extends down to 415'. The proposed road includes 180' of walls (which are defined as structures in the California Building Code) up to 10' high at approximately 450' elevation which clearly violates PP. To avoid this violation, the Council could ask the voters of Pleasanton to create an exception to PP just for this specific road to built. Such voter language could be: The Lund Ranch 11 development requires construction of a road connecting up to 50 housing units to Sunset Creek Rd. This road has been the assumed access for the Lund Ranch 11 development for the past 25 years. The proposed road crosses slopes greater than 25% and has requires structures within 100 vertical feet of a ridge as defined in Measure PP. Should the road connecting to Sunset Creek be constructed even though it is not allowed under Measure PP? Approval would not modify Measure PP except to allow this specific road in the Lund Ranch II development. 1