My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2013
>
050713
>
01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/1/2013 4:34:44 PM
Creation date
5/1/2013 4:34:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
5/7/2013
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
01
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
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
nature and also that there are no landlocked properties that would benefit from this exemption. Staff <br /> therefore did not include these two provisions in the draft ordinance. <br /> The Planning Commission agreed with the Council's original direction that roads are structures and <br /> cannot be considered for development in the areas restricted by PP. On the advice of staff, the <br /> Commission elected not to recommend an exemption for roads anticipated in existing Specific Plans or <br /> PUD Development Plans. Mr. Dolan explained that the language of PP stipulates that both the current <br /> General Plan and existing Specific Plans are superseded by the implementation of Measure PP. Staff, <br /> however, is recommending that roads not be considered structures for several reasons. The word <br /> "road" or "street" is not included in the measure and staff feels that any intent to prohibit streets or roads <br /> could have been referenced very easily. <br /> Mr. Dolan also noted that there are significant implications of concluding that streets and roads are <br /> structures and therefore subject to the limitations imposed by PP. These include that the bypass road <br /> envisioned in the Happy Valley Specific Plan as well as a potential road connection from the Lund <br /> Ranch development to Sunset Creek Lane or Sycamore Creek Way would not be allowed as <br /> envisioned in their respective specific plans. He explained that in concluding roads are structures, other <br /> policies within the General Plan that prohibit visually obtrusive and environmentally damaging <br /> development as well as CEQA review would afford the community control over where these potential <br /> roads ultimately go. <br /> With regards to existing definitions and interpretations, he explained that there are multiple and <br /> unfortunately inconsistent definitions of "structure" within the City's Municipal Code. He cited 3 <br /> examples, the first of which refers to walled and roofed building, including a gas or liquid storage tank <br /> that is principally above ground which would seem to imply that roads are not subject. The second <br /> reference seems similarly inappropriate. The third reference is found in Chapter 18 and defines a <br /> structure as anything constructed or erected which requires a location on the ground, including a <br /> building or swimming pool but not including a fence or a wall used as a fence if the height does not <br /> exceed 6 feet, or access drives or walks. He said that staff's interpretation of these is that the definition <br /> changes based on the subject matter. Staff further believes that this is new subject matter and the <br /> Council has the latitude to select what it believes to be the appropriate definition. Staff has provided <br /> language to be added to the draft ordinance if the Council should disagree with the recommendation. <br /> Mayor Thorne noted that this public hearing was opened at the last meeting and continued to this <br /> meeting, and that this is the time for the public to comment. <br /> Cindy McGovern stated that roads are and always have been an integral part of Measure PP, as <br /> demonstrated by several emails submitted to the Council by PP authors. She referred to the <br /> Pleasanton Municipal Code, which describes a structure as anything constructed or erected which <br /> requires location on the ground. She referred to the Minutes of March 13, in which staff believed the <br /> application of Municipal Code to roads to be unclear. She noted the code also refers to access drives <br /> and off street parking facilities. In terms of the voters' intent, she said the language of the initiative is <br /> very clear in that it intends to "protect scenic hills from development" and that the arguments for PP <br /> show a mile long road standing atop the southeast hills. Rebuttals to the argument against PP <br /> discussed the creation of roads and roads were also a common part of the information used to gather <br /> signatures. She noted that Chapters 18.69 and 18.76 of the Municipal Code also make reference to <br /> roads as structures. She referred to a staff analysis that estimated the Lund Ranch II development <br /> carried the potential for 5 dwelling units or 10 by default. She said that PP, which aims to stop massive <br /> grading of hillsides from the construction of long roads offers real protections that cannot be amended <br /> or repealed with a vote of the people; a General Plan policy that is changed through the Council does <br /> not equal true protection. She asked that the Council uphold the vote of the Plan-ling Commission and <br /> determine that allowing roads on slopes of 25% or great undermines the intention of PP. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 5 of 23 April 16, 2013 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.