My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2015
>
110315
>
11 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/28/2015 3:38:00 PM
Creation date
10/14/2015 3:54:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
11/3/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
11 ATTACHMENTS 9-16
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
270
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Allen Roberts <br /> June 23, 2015 <br /> Planning Commission <br /> City of Pleasanton <br /> 200 Old Bernal Ave <br /> Pleasanton, California 94566 <br /> Re: PUD 25 Lund Ranch Comments <br /> Dear Commissioners: <br /> I have reviewed the Staff report for the consideration of PUD 25. While I intend to speak <br /> at the meeting, I felt it would be helpful for the Commissioners to have the benefit of my <br /> comments in advance. <br /> PP was passed by the voters in 2008 as a statement that the hillsides and ridgelines in <br /> Pleasanton should be preserved. The measure was put on the ballot and won with strong <br /> support even in the face of a competing measure(QQ)sponsored by the Council which <br /> 410 was intended to confuse the voters. Because of this history, the Planning Commission and <br /> City Council should tread very carefully when considering modifications which might <br /> undermine what the voters intended when they voted strongly for PP. <br /> While this development has many aspects which are consistent with what voters would <br /> have wanted,the definitions being used here are likely to produce results completely <br /> contrary to their vision when applied to other projects. I implore the Commission and <br /> Council to be very conservative with the interpretation of PP so that the spirit of what <br /> voters wanted is preserved. <br /> Text of PP: <br /> Policy 12.3: Ridgelines and hillsides shall be protected. Housing units and structures <br /> shall not be placed on slopes of 25 percent or greater, or within 100 vertical feet of a <br /> ridgeline. No grading to construct residential or commercial structures shall occur on <br /> hillside slopes 25%or greater, or within 100 vertical feet of a ridgeline. Exempt from this <br /> policy are housing developments of 10 or fewer housing units on a single property that <br /> was, as of January 1, 2007, "legal parcel"pursuant to the California Subdivision Map <br /> law. Splitting dividing, or sub-dividing a "legal parcel" of January 1, 2007 to approve <br /> more than 10 housing units is not allowed <br /> Slope: <br /> There is no disagreement that slope is defined as the rise divided by run expressed as a%. <br /> 4111 The disagreement has been what resolution to use for the measurement. In previous PP <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.