11 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16 - Laserfiche WebLink

at first arguing that a road is a structure when it seemed the access road from Sunset Creek would be exempt from PP. The Council and Planning Commission agreed as well. Only when this specific access road was determined to be controlled by PP did Staff and Council reverse themselves. That reversal prompted several letters from attorneys to the Council, which I attached to my letter dated June 23. Those letters made it clear the legal issues the Council was facing if it attempted to modify PP by redefining terms referenced on the initiative, especially if that reversal was to allow a specific project to avoid to requirements of PP. I believe the Commission and Council should take a conservative position on this question and assume that a road is a structure for the purposes of PP. If the road from Sunset Creek is to be built,it should be specifically authorized by a vote of the citizens of Pleasanton as an exception to PP. A ballot question that would be specific to this road could be: The Lund Ranch II development requires construction of a road connecting up to 40 housing units to Sunset Creek Rd. This road has been the assumed access for the Lund Ranch II development for the past 25 years. The proposed road crosses slopes greater than 25%and is 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. Natural Slopes exceeding 25%: The development, as proposed, has multiple areas for houses and roads in areas with slopes greater than 25%in violation of PP. One such area was exempted by Staff because it was claimed that the slopes were man-made and not naturally occurring. While such an exemption is not allowed for in PP,the larger problem is that much of the proposed exempted area is actually natural slopes. During the workshop hearing earlier this year, I pointed out that the photo included in the report actually showed the natural slope to be steeper than 30%. Staff rejected my comment in the meeting saying that photo was likely incorrect for slope angles. According to the development map submitted by the developer, the area of natural slope highlighted in red by Staff on the photo is greater than 33%. When I pointed this out in my letter dated June 23, 2015 and the hearing in June, the developer produced a drawing dated March 17, 2015 suggesting the natural slope has a consistent grade of 21.9%. To achieve this grade, the extent of the man-made slope was vastly exaggerated. The developer's drawing claimed the original slope included the entire creek bed and extending 150' up the slope well into the grove of trees on the slope. This is very unlikely for many reasons, but the most compelling is the large oak tree in the staff photo, which is at the base of the purported man-made slope. This oak tree is very mature and certainly predates any slope modifications. However, for the developer's