PC 062415 - Laserfiche WebLink

contained in the CC &Rs and the PUD and the conditions and there is a sign at the end of the road that says this is the connection point. Commissioner Balch stated that if he read what he considers as one of the rules, the rules argue that the road goes in, because he believes the City should uphold its agreements to the Mission Park neighborhood and the Junipero neighborhood. Chair Allen stated that she too has struggled with this and that she has argued with herself on both sides. She indicated that she is going to start on an emotional side because she was thinking about this the last few months, and her emotional side without a doubt would go for Option 2: the Sunset Creek Lane connection should go in, and 100 percent of the Lund Ranch traffic should go there. She reasoned that they are long -held agreements, and the private agreement is irrelevant to her because the fact of the matter is, there have been long held PUDs, there is a traffic model that always for many decades has assumed this is the plan, and this is part of the General Plan's assumption for circulation. She added that it is clear that the CC &Rs for Sycamore and Bridle Creek address this, and there is a sign at the end of the road. Chair Allen stated that she has spent a lot more time thinking about Measure PP and reading it more carefully, talking to more people and looking at the Planning Commission deliberations when it was asked the question, and looking at both the Councils' discussions on this when Cindy McGovern and Matt Sullivan were on the Council versus the more recent Council. She indicated that she was almost there in terms of saying she could live with the vagueness in Measure PP since "roads" were not defined. She noted, however, that when she started looking at retaining walls, she just could not say that a retaining wall was not a structure. She stated that she spent today looking almost everywhere and did not find one place that it was not defined as a structure. With respect to roads, she stated that she could say roads are vague and that she can live with saying it is vague and could let her emotions trump that one. She indicated, however, that she cannot do it on retaining walls, and it is clear that this road requires retaining walls, and retaining walls are clearly a structure in Measure PP, in the General Plan, in the Municipal Code, and even industry-wide where a three -foot tall retaining wall would still be a retaining wall, which is a structure. Chair Allen stated that because Measure PP trumps all the agreements that have been reached before, she does not feel comfortable supporting Option 2 or 3, and would have to go with Option 1. She further stated that there are a couple of people that she has talked to who actually helped author Measure PP, and there are authors who believe strongly that a road is a structure, and both told her that when they were involved with Measure PP, their intention was not to preclude a road like Sunset Creek Lane; their intent was to preclude roads like Oak Grove and roads that can be seen by the general public. She added that they would be open if anyone else would create an initiative essentially saying what Measure PP says and would further define whether a road is a structure; but it would essentially legally exclude or exempt the Lund Ranch project from Measure PP. She indicated that this would carry pros and cons and could cause even more confusion, and it would drag out this process; but the good side of it would be it would create closure and might be a way to have a win /win with both sides. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 37 of 54