CCMIN041613 - Laserfiche WebLink

appropriate for the entire Pleasanton community. He also cautioned that taking the term "structure" too far could inadvertently preclude the development of trails and certain public safety features such as fire roads. Carol Spain, Ventana Hills Steering Committee, read from a legal opinion that was prepared by respected land use attorney Peter MacDonald at the request of Ventana Hills and Mission Hills Park neighbors and forwarded to the Council on April 15`h. She called particular attention to his assessment that "the weight of evidence favors the conclusion that a road is not a structure within the meaning of Measure PP" and that "the ballot arguments did not address the meaning of a structure, but the argument against Measure PP charged that it would stop the bypass road and the proponents responded that was untrue." Mr. MacDonald's analysis also concluded that any interpretation that PP, by implication, repealed core principles of the Happy Valley Specific Plan and North Sycamore Specific Plan would have to be rejected by a judge and that any intention of PP to the contrary would have to have been explicitly disclosed to the voters in plain English. She asked that the Council support staff's well researched recommendation and respect decisions committed to by prior City Councils. Leslie Howard concurred with Ms. Spain's comments. She said the good faith intent of those who voted for PP was to preserve Pleasanton's pristine hills but that they perhaps did not understand that it would usurp previous decisions. She also agreed with those who spoke of the traffic dangers surrounding Mission Hills Park. Justin Brown said that both legal and engineering perspectives support the interpretation that a road is not structure. He cited 98 specific references to the term structure in the General Plan and 200 in the Municipal Code. In all instances those references, including the sections mentioned by other speakers, are consistent with commonly accepted general engineering practices referring to bridges, houses, garages, sheds, swimming pools and culverts. He saw no specific mention, implication or reference that a wearing surface such as a road should be considered a structure. He noted 1:hat the General Plan specifically and appropriately mentions roads as being part of the City's infras':ructure. He said that previous references to Title 7 and Title 24 of the California Government Code are taken out of context. He expressed concern that defining a road as a structure could carry unintended consequences of conflict with the Municipal Code, particularly with respect to easements for utilities or other public uses. He asked that the Council support the staff recommendation and allow future development projects to be judged on their own merits rather than be subject to misdirection of the language of PP. Pat Markle, Sycamore Heights, said a street is very much a structure. She echoed others concerns regarding traffic and estimated that the Lund Ranch II development would send another 2,500 to 5,000 car trips through her neighborhood on a daily basis. She said that if the Council ignores the intent of PP and the majority that voted for it, Pleasanton is no longer a community of character. Chris Markle said he fully agreed with Ms. McGovern's comments. He said that when voters supported the statement that "ridgelines and hillsides shall be protected," they were riot making subtleties betweens houses, roads, streetlights or any other development. He said that whe':her a road is or is not a structure is ultimately irrelevant because the voters asked for protection, but that both the arguments for and against PP made numerous references to roads. He said he was struck by staff's conservative and restriction interpretation regarding contour intervals but wide open approach to the propriety of roads. Bill Lincoln reminded the Council that in November 2012 they voted unanimously that a road is a structure, that the Planning Commission unanimously voted in support of that position, and that the City's own Planning Department previously agreed. He said the issue has been largely clouded by the proposed Lund Ranch II development and estimated that if taken out of the equation, the community would come down largely against grading in the hillsides. He said PP is beautiful ii its simplicity and the intent to protect hillsides from grading and development is clear. City Council Minutes Page 7 of 23 April 16, 2013