Laserfiche WebLink
fence or a wall used as a fence if the height does not exceed six feet, or access drives <br />or walks." <br />Mr. Dolan stated that the Commission could make that connection and go to this <br />definition in the Municipal Code. He indicated, however, that what staff is proposing is <br />that Measure PP does not necessarily directly reference roads as things that are <br />prohibited in those two areas. He noted some would read the language in this particular <br />definition and say that it applies to roads. He stated that staff believes it is unclear <br />exactly whether or not it applies to roads, mostly because the language also refers to <br />access drives. He added that if the Commission decides to recommend to the Council <br />that structures not be prohibited by the regulations of Measure PP, the best way to <br />justify that position is that there is no way to know what the voters were thinking when <br />they cast their ballot; whether they even referenced this definition or some other <br />definition, and whether they were considering roads as structures or not. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that because of those real life implications that he referenced earlier, <br />staff is actually recommending that the Commission recommend to the Council that <br />roads not be considered structures for the purposes of implementing Measure PP. He <br />explained that what that would do in the real world then is not necessarily guarantee <br />that the Bypass Road could be built or guarantee that a connection from Lund Ranch II <br />would be made to Sycamore Creek Lane, but it allows the Planning Commission and <br />the Council to consider those as options when those two projects come forward, and <br />staff believes that there is enough ambiguity in the language of Measure PP to choose <br />that route. He added that he can completely understand those who would argue <br />against it. He indicated that he is not saying their position is ridiculous, but this position <br />is also valid. <br />Mr. Dolan continued that if the Commission takes that recommendation, there is a <br />logical concern that would come to mind on whether that means roads can run any <br />which way up on ridgelines and on steep slopes. He indicated that there are other <br />protections, one of which is Policy 21 of the Land Use Element which states: "Preserve <br />scenic hillside and ridge views of the Pleasanton, Main, and Southeast Hills ridges." He <br />noted that this can be used to dictate the location of roads when a project comes <br />forward or when a road is proposed. He added that there are also the tools available <br />with the CEQA review. He clarified that a visual concern would be addressed by <br />Policy 21, and an environmental concern by CEQA; additionally, the City has a lot of <br />authority to put roads where it wants them to be. <br />Mr. Dolan then gave a little bit of a preview in terms of the Lund Ranch property. He <br />noted that there are several possibilities to get to Lunch Ranch, the main one being <br />Lund Ranch Road which goes straight into the valley and has been the historic access <br />to the property. He added that, as was mentioned earlier, the North Sycamore Specific <br />Plan indicates that access to the property will be provided through Sunset Creek Lane <br />or Sycamore Creek Way. He noted, however, that if a road is called a structure, and <br />roads cannot be put on a 25- percent slope, then the connection to either Sunset Creek <br />Lane or Sycamore Creek Way cannot be made. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 13, 2013 Page 6 of 35 <br />