My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2015
>
110315
>
11 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/28/2015 3:38:00 PM
Creation date
10/14/2015 3:54:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
11/3/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
11 ATTACHMENTS 9-16
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
270
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
pointed out that the will of the Pleasanton voters was made clear by the passage of <br /> Measure PP several years ago: the people do not want structures built on hillsides with <br /> a 25-percent or greater grade; roads are structures and there is overwhelming evidence <br /> to support that. <br /> Mr. Chu stated that staff mentioned today that Measure PP does not consider roads as <br /> structures because roads are necessary to implement their recommendation. He <br /> indicated that he does not think that is a good enough justification, that people need to <br /> look at the facts and the law, that people need to look at how a court would interpret <br /> Measure PP. He added that retaining walls are also structures, and retaining walls <br /> would be required if staffs recommendation is implemented. He asked the Commission <br /> to take care and not to make a recommendation to the City Council that will violate the <br /> law and cause the City to wade into the time-consuming and expensive waters of <br /> litigation. He added that if no agreement is reached regarding the interpretation of <br /> Measure PP, there is a system set up through the courts that will help with that <br /> interpretation. He emphasized that Measure PP needs to be defended for the good of <br /> the community and urged the Commission to look at the facts, look at the law, ignore <br /> anecdotes and unsupported statements or emotional appeals, review the ample <br /> materials before it, and make a truly informed decision without blindly following City staff <br /> recommendations. <br /> John Spotorno reiterated an email he sent earlier this week to the Planning Division <br /> about how the Spotorno Ranch shares approximately 7/10 of a mile of fence between <br /> this project and their property, and hopes they can work out the fencing details between <br /> the two properties through an agreement to secure their continued operation of the <br /> rangeland that abuts a residential project such as this. <br /> James Frost commented on staff's presentation that if a road is not a structure, he is <br /> confused as to how it can be subject to the structural defects that staff indicated could <br /> possibly happen, that it would seem to him then that a road is a structure by definition. <br /> He noted that at the last meeting, he made a very impassioned plea that Measure PP <br /> be recognized and accept the road as a structure. <br /> Mr. Frost stated that at the last meeting, a Commissioner who was not present tonight <br /> provided a Wikipedia definition of a structure with the conclusion that a road is not a <br /> structure. He indicated that he [Mr. Frost] was an engineer, highly educated, who has <br /> been in the high-tech biotech industry for 35 years doing all kinds of clever projects and <br /> working on a forensics DNA project here in Pleasanton as a consultant. He added that <br /> he is not a consultant; he operates a winery in the Napa Valley and runs all the <br /> engineering projects there, and is right now spending $500,000 for replacing their septic <br /> system with a live axe septic system, so he is very familiar with engineering. He stated <br /> that he took the Wikipedia definition to three engineers whom he really respects and <br /> asked them if they have a fundamental or rudimentary understanding of what it takes to <br /> build a road, and if a road is a structure. He indicated that the three engineers <br /> answered yes to both questions, and that would make it 4-to-1 against the <br /> Commissioner. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 13 of 45 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.