CCMIN041613 - Laserfiche WebLink

consequences of defining a road as a structure. She said she consulted with DSRSD, Zone 7, PG&E and other agencies that might be involved easement type situations — each allows roads but does not allow structures. Therefore, defining a road as a structure could preclude meeting certain public safety needs and even the development of trails. She noted that much of this is predicated on the assumption that PP supersedes specific plans. She referred to page 7 of the North Sycamore Specific Plan, which states that "at the time of Specific Plan approval, the City amended the General Plan to be consistent with the Specific Plan." She then consulted with Assistant City Attorney Harryman about how the City manages General Plan conflicts and Ms. Harryman indicated that it is up to the Council to determine vertical consistency. She recognized that the Council had a different finding in November than is currently recommended by staff and admitted to being troubled by what she now believes was a bad vote. She explained, however, that the vote was based on the presumption that the North Sycamore and other specific plans would be honored and that the Council has had an opportunity to conduct additional research. She said there is no question in her mind that a vote for PP was a vote to protect the ridges but that the initiative itself says nothing about roads. She helped to write the argument against PP that claimed it would stop the promised Happy Valley Bypass Road and that the rebuttal says those arguments were untrue. As someone with no other knowledge of the issue, she would have read that to mean that PP would allow them to build the road. She acknowledged and agreed with the public's comments about preventing the eyesore of mile long road on top of the ridgeline and said the language of the initiative itself clearly prohibits that. She also reviewed the City Attorney's impartial analysis of PP which stated that "some clarification "some clarification of terms in the measure, for example structure, ridgeline, and how to measure slope may be necessary in order that GP policies remain internally consistent and to resolve potential conflicts between other City policies and the measures." She closed in stating that believed a road to be infrastructure, not a structure. Councilmember Brown thanked the public for voicing their concerns. She reiterated that this is not a discussion of how Lund Ranch II will connect to the greater community, but rather an attempt to codify a General Plan amendment in the Municipal Code. She believed that she and the other authors and signers of PP intended to create an ordinance that protects ridge tops, period. She referred to the City's Municipal Code, which defines a road as a structure, and said the authors of PP were aware of this. According the Municipal Code, a 7 foot high fence is a structure and thought it naturally followed that a road, which requires significantly more engineering, design and grading, would also be a structure. She referenced Title 7 and Title 24 of the California Building as supporting the interpretation that a road is a structure. In terms of access to Lund Ranch II and neighborhood traffic, she said that good planning involves routing around neighborhoods off of main corridors, not cutting through existing neighborhoods to access another development. She said that she, the Pleasanton Municipal Code and the California Building Code are all clear in considering a road to be a structure. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio said that while there seems to be at least a presumption of consensus among some of those who voted for PP, there is also a wealth of contradictory information and comments. She referred to the meeting minutes that Ms. Ayala quoted and said it is clear there was not even consensus then, which is what makes this so difficult. She said she believed the intent of the voters should be honored but also that people seem to be inconsistent in that intent. Councilmember Pentin requested confirmation that Councilmember Brown was the speaker in meeting minutes referenced by Ms. Ayala. Councilmember Brown said those were her comments in 2008 but that based on research done since then she believes, as did the Council in November, that a road is a structure. Councilmember Pentin said his concern was with upholding the intent of those who crafted PP and what was presented to the voters. He said that Ms. Ayala's references to the meeting minutes as well as her own personal comments indicating that roads were not intended to be a part of this carry considerable weight. He referred to the map used to gather signatures and noted that PP does not City Council Minutes Page 12 of 23 April 16, 2013