11 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Roberts stated that unfortunately, nearly all the discussion on this project has been on its access roads and has completely ignored all the other merits and issues of the project. He indicated that while he completely understands that the existing Ventana Hills residents have been promised no more traffic for years, that does not change the fact that Measure PP was enacted, and despite what Measure PP writers might have had in their minds when they wrote it, it is now the law and the definitions in place are what matters now. He further indicated that trying to bend those definitions to allow Measure PP to be circumvented is doing a disservice to the voters. He reminded this Commission that a prior Commission and City Council addressed this issue and unanimously voted that a road is a structure. He asked them not to try to rationalize that a highway is a structure and a dirt road is not, and that a road is not a structure but something called infrastructure. He noted that there is no reference to infrastructure in the California Building Code, and Pleasanton should not create such a definition merely to circumvent Measure PP. Mr. Roberts stated that at the last Commission meeting, he watched the Commissioners agonize about their decision between upholding Measure PP and prior neighborhood commitments. He indicated that the Commission does not have to make that choice; it could instead approve 10 units and condition the additional 30 or 40 units to ask the voters who passed Measure PP if they want to have this road built to Sunset Creek Lane; and if the voters approve, then the full project can be built with those additional units connected to Sunset Creek Lane, but if they do not, then it is a 10-unit project. He pointed out that in this manner, the Commission could uphold Measure PP and prior commitments at the same time. He asked the Commission to please respect what the voters wanted for Pleasanton and not undermine Measure PP without their permission. Kay Ayala stated that after the last meeting where the intent of Measure PP was questioned, she contacted Steve Brozosky, a former Councilmember and former School Board member who was part of the group that put the Measure PP together, as he is an IT person and asked him to search his emails that were exchanged during that time. She indicated that she was the focal point of the group and everything went through her; she printed out the Initiative and got the signers for the Initiative. She stated that Mr. Brozosky summarized the emails and sent it to the Commission; however, the Commission may have received it a little bit late, and so she wished to read it tonight: "In Measure PP, roads were never considered to be structures. This discussion came up during the writing of PP because of the golf course bypass road, and we wanted to make sure there was nothing in PP that would preclude that road from going in. Since Measure PP pertains to development greater than 10 houses, it was really equating houses, secondary units, and other above-ground structures to structures." Ms. Ayala stated that it has been brought up recently that some dictionary definitions consider a road a structure; however, that was not the intent when Measure PP was developed. She indicated that she whole-heartedly has the same recollection as EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 26, 2015 Page 10 of 26