PC 062415 - Laserfiche WebLink

the Chrisman Ranch to build over existing roads, and that they had to extend beyond those existing roads and encroach upon slopes greater than 25 percent for the whole project to happen; and that was acceptable. He indicated that the document he handed to the Commission is Figure 4.1 -3, page 70 of the EIR. He noted that the two red boxes on the document are what are being contemplated here as far as steep grades; and the area that will be crossed is less than the size of the seating area in the room. He pointed out that the small green line going from the top of the ridge down is a road; there is an existing road coming down right across the middle of that grade from the ridge down, and there is also a road on the top of that ridge around two water tanks. He stated that this hillside can be exempt from Measured PP; it has already been graded, and that existing dirt road can be graded all the way up to access Sunset Creek Lane and the Bridle Creek roadway system, as was contemplated in the previous sessions. Mr. Bauer then stated that he wanted to talk about disclosures because in 2003 when this first hit the public in a limited amount of time, there was community outrage about disclosures, mainly from the Bridle Creek community that had settled in then. He acknowledged receipt of the Sycamore Heights and Greenbriar CC &Rs in response to his request, and it is very plainly stated in the Bridle Creek CC &Rs that the road will connect through the development. He added that there is a lot of ambiguity in the Sycamore Heights CC &Rs, but he recalls that Sunset Creek Lane may connect to the Lund Ranch development. He asked where the connection would be if it was not going to connect to Sunset Creek Lane. David Melaugh stated that he will focus his comments on the road structure issue. He indicated that he wrote to the Commission on June 14, 2015 and June 23, 2015 discussing in detail that a road is indeed a structure. He further indicated that he is an attorney and that what he will talk about this evening is a question of statutory interpretation. Mr. Melaugh stated that the Pleasanton Municipal Code is what is being interpreted, and at issue is the definition of a structure, which the Code says is "anything constructed or erected which requires a location on the ground." He indicated that the question is if a road fits that definition, but what needs to be addressed first is whether the definition language is ambiguous, and it is not. He stated that if one asks a spouse or the next person on the street if the road is something constructed and requires a location on the ground, he doubts if there will be even one person who will say "no." The Oxford English Dictionary's definition of "construct" is "to build or erect something, typically a building, road, or machine." He indicated that he did not insert the word "road" in that definition; that is Oxford's definition. He added that the clarity of Pleasanton's Municipal Code definition should end this debate with respect. Mr. Melaugh stated that the aim here is to apply Pleasanton law, and if one is getting legal advice that there is some ambiguity or room for interpretation in this Code, one is getting bad advice. He noted, however, that if, for argument's sake, there is some ambiguity and it is necessary to turn to other sources for interpretation, there are many communities that explicitly define roads as structures: the California State Government Code is one example, as is Fremont. He added that other there are plenty of places with broad definitions like Pleasanton's that list roads as an example of a type of structure: Orinda, Alameda, and Lafayette are cities that do just that. He pointed out PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 17 of 54