PC 062415 - Laserfiche WebLink

was the most heartfelt because she is really truly dealing with this as a resident on that street. 2. From the standpoint of if a road is a structure or not, the environmental impacts, Measure PP, and what she personally believes the intent was of the drafters and the voters of Measure PP, Commissioner Piper stated that her belief is that a road is indeed a structure. This makes it super difficult because in that case, she would favor Option 1, knowing it would be upholding what the voters intended to do. In a perfect world, to mitigate some of the impact in the Junipero Street neighborhood, maybe the number of homes could be reduced. Commissioner Nagler stated that, first of all, there are obviously four issues before the Commission, and the road being a structure and Measure PP may be the one that is controversial. He indicated that he totally supports the staff recommendations and findings on the other issues; the artificial slope and so forth. He agreed that this is a tough one and the reason deliberative bodies exist is to have these conversations and make majority votes and hopefully have life go on in a way that people can survive as a result and prosper. Commissioner Nagler stated if one starts on this controversial question about where the road should be, with the position that Measure PP in fact does trump everything else, which is probably the most clear statement that could be made out of all of this, then the question becomes much more difficult: "What was in the mind of the typical voter when he /she went to the polls and enacted Measure PP ?" He acknowledge that he actually does not know what are in the minds of voters when they do vote for one or the other candidate; that everyone comes to those decisions with independent thoughts and independent interpretations, but because it is a yes or no vote, a majority is formed on one side or another, but it does not mean that the voters have the same idea in their minds when they cast that vote. Commissioner Nagler stated that having said that, it does become important to recognize that the City Council, after much debate and a very heartfelt attempt to interpret this element of Measure PP, formed public policy that says there is no universal or all enveloping answer to the question; that in order to try and determine what the voters intended in protecting the hillsides in a very significant way would require looking at the question on a case -by -case basis, determine what is a 100 -foot setback, and whether a road is somehow marring the aesthetic of a hillside and therefore violating the intent of the voters, that it really cannot be done other than by looking at the specific facts and the specific circumstance of the decision; and that is the City of Pleasanton's public policy. Commissioner Nagler stated that, even assuming that Measure PP does trump all else, the Commission has to deal with how this applies to this specific decision. He indicated that as he stands on the hillside on the top of the Lund Ranch II development, and he looks at the slope and where the road would be and various ways the road could be constructed, and what that impact might be on the larger surroundings, as one person being asked to make a statement on this, he has come to the conclusion that the issues that the voters generally stated had in mind in enacting Measure PP were much larger and were attempting to impact a much more demonstrative and apparent environmental PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 35 of 54