SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

LAW OFFICE PETER MACDONALD '° L MATERI/L PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94566-7371 the City Council is;robutlon of Packet ( April 15, 2013 City Council City of Pleasanton 123 Main Street P.O. Box 520 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Subject: Item 17 re Measure PP, April 16, 2013 Meeting Honorable Mayor Thorne and Members of the Council, I have been retained by The Ventana Hills Steering Committee and Mission Hills Area Representatives, to review the legal issues, and if justified, advocate that a road is not a "structure" within the meaning of Measure PP. I come late to this process, after both sides have inundated City policyrnakers with various arguments and documents supporting their positions. I will minimize use of legal citations, but everything stated below is supported by legal authority. Legal Framework There are multiple common uses of the word "structure", most of which do not include a road as a structure, and one of which does include a road as a structure. The City Attorney, as reported at bottom of p. 6 of the April 2, 2013 Staff Report, has opined that the City decision-maker has to choose either one definition or the other. I agree. In perusing the mass of information provided, neither side has produced a dispositive fact or law that standing alone mandates a decision in their side's favor. Both sides have produced substantial evidence in support of their arguments. In my systematic legal analysis of this issue which follows, the weight of the evidence favors the conclusion that a road is not a "structure" within the meaning of Measure PP. The judicial framework for review of the City Council's decision is that the interpretation of Measure PP is a matter of law, on which the court will exercise its independent judgment. Even if there is substantial evidence supporting the City Council's determination, the court would make its own independent determination on this issue of