PC 062415 - Laserfiche WebLink

noted that the Commission's decisions and recommendations will have far broader implications for the community because Measure PP is being tested and precedent is being established. He added that contrary to certain staff comments made at the February meeting, casting doubt that Measure PP would ever be implicated again in the future, that the Measure PP issues at hand are one off, his understanding is that, in fact, there are seven or eight other properties that would be impacted by the precedent set by the application of Measure PP to the Lund Ranch development. He noted that this project is at the tip of the sword in putting Measure PP to its first meaningful test. He pointed out that the will of the Pleasanton voters was made clear by the passage of Measure PP several years ago: the people do not want structures built on hillsides with a 25- percent or greater grade; roads are structures and there is overwhelming evidence to support that. Mr. Chu stated that staff mentioned today that Measure PP does not consider roads as structures because roads are necessary to implement their recommendation. He indicated that he does not think that is a good enough justification, that people need to look at the facts and the law, that people need to look at how a court would interpret Measure PP. He added that retaining walls are also structures, and retaining walls would be required if staff's recommendation is implemented. He asked the Commission to take care and not to make a recommendation to the City Council that will violate the law and cause the City to wade into the time - consuming and expensive waters of litigation. He added that if no agreement is reached regarding the interpretation of Measure PP, there is a system set up through the courts that will help with that interpretation. He emphasized that Measure PP needs to be defended for the good of the community and urged the Commission to look at the facts, look at the law, ignore anecdotes and unsupported statements or emotional appeals, review the ample materials before it, and make a truly informed decision without blindly following City staff recommendations. John Spotorno reiterated an email he sent earlier this week to the Planning Division about how the Spotorno Ranch shares approximately 7/10 of a mile of fence between this project and their property, and hopes they can work out the fencing details between the two properties through an agreement to secure their continued operation of the rangeland that abuts a residential project such as this. James Frost commented on staff's presentation that if a road is not a structure, he is confused as to how it can be subject to the structural defects that staff indicated could possibly happen, that it would seem to him then that a road is a structure by definition. He noted that at the last meeting, he made a very impassioned plea that Measure PP be recognized and accept the road as a structure. Mr. Frost stated that at the last meeting, a Commissioner who was not present tonight provided a Wikipedia definition of a structure with the conclusion that a road is not a structure. He indicated that he [Mr. Frost] was an engineer, highly educated, who has been in the high -tech biotech industry for 35 years doing all kinds of clever projects and working on a forensics DNA project here in Pleasanton as a consultant. He added that he is not a consultant; he operates a winery in the Napa Valley and runs all the engineering projects there, and is right now spending $500,000 for replacing their septic system with a live axe septic system, so he is very familiar with engineering. He stated PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 15 of 54