My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
08 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2015
>
120115
>
08 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/24/2015 11:46:19 AM
Creation date
11/12/2015 11:12:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
12/1/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
08 ATTACHMENTS 9-16
NOTES
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM 11-3-2015 MEETING
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
manatt <br /> manatt I phelps I phillips <br /> Mayor Thome <br /> and Members of the City Council <br /> May 7, 2013 <br /> Page 3 <br /> referenced by the General Plan that were adopted prior to November 2008. Roads are structures <br /> and cannot be constructed on the hillside areas prohibited by Measure PP from development." <br /> (Staff Report,p. 6.) The Staff Report indicates that Staff,however,did not concur with the <br /> Planning Commission's recommendation because the effect of Measure PP on roads would not <br /> be desirable in Staff's view. Specifically, the Staff Report describes the improper motivation for <br /> re-defining "structure"to exclude roads as follows: <br /> Staff previously recommended the proposed Code Chapter exempt <br /> roads anticipated by PUD Development Plans and Specific Plans <br /> approved before November 2008. In consultation with the City <br /> Attorney' s Office prior to the March 13th Planning Commission <br /> public hearing, the Planning Division staff determined that this <br /> "grandfathering" of roads previously anticipated by plans and <br /> developments may not be a defensible implementation of Measure <br /> PP for the following reason: Measure PP supersedes the General <br /> Plan and the Specific Plans referenced by the General Plan. If <br /> roads are structures, they cannot be constructed on the hillside <br /> areas prohibited by Measure PP from development. This <br /> determination has implications that the City Council should be <br /> aware of as the proposed ordinance is considered. The <br /> proposed By-Pass Road anticipated in the Happy Valley Specific <br /> Plan would need to traverse extensive areas of land with a 25- <br /> percent slope or greater. Similarly,the roadway connection to the <br /> Lund Ranch II property from either Sunset Creek Lane or <br /> Sycamore Creek Way anticipated in the North Sycamore Specific <br /> Plan would also need to traverse smaller areas of land with a 25- <br /> percent slope or greater. (emph. added; Staff Report,pp. 6-7.) <br /> It is impermissible for the City to adopt amendments that would render provisions of Measure PP <br /> inapplicable to specific projects. The proposed amendments recommended by Staff are clearly <br /> designed to avoid the proper application of Measure PP and are not aimed toward clarifying or <br /> implementing Measure PP's provisions. <br /> Here, Measure PP unequivocally states that"[Mousing units and structures shall not be placed on <br /> slopes of 25%or greater, or within 100 vertical feet of a ridgeline"and there is no indication that <br /> all structures, including roads(as the then-existing definition of"structure" included)were not <br /> contemplated. Similarly, there is no evidence that the proponents of Measure PP intended some <br /> other meaning of"ridgeline"than as defined in the City's Code. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.