01 - Laserfiche WebLink

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 Dolan explained that the language of PP stipulates that both the current General Plan and existing Specific Plans are superseded by the implementation of Measure PP.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