SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Amendments to Measure PP Require a Vote of People Given that this was an officially published staff report indicated reduced density due to Measure PP, it is quite possible that the city will be subject to legal action if it allows more Dwelling Units on various hillside developments than the city outlined in its official staff report on June 17, 2008. Measure PP only allows amendments to Measure PP through a vote of the people in a November General Election. If the city council itself modifies Measure PP without a vote of the people and excludes roads as structures, it will nullify Measure PP. Subsequent PUDs approved with the nullified Measure PP will certainly be subject to a wide variety of possible legal challenges. Given that Greenbriar Homes was the primary opponent of Measure PP and funded much of its opposition, I am sure that the judge/judges would certainly question why suddenly a staff analysis of 10 units on Lund Ranch II property prior to passage of Measure PP suddenly increases by a factor of 5 to approximately 50 units after voter approval of Measure PP. The only exception to Measure PP is housing units of 10 or fewer units. Background of Measure PP I wrote the contested portion of Measure PP that is being discussed this evening. The original General Plan policies that restricted development on slopes 25% or greater included restrictions on "development." "Development" encompasses all components of a development including the roads and streets that comprise the development. The original General Plan restrictions on slopes 25% or greater were originally written by the following individuals: Frank Brandes, Chuck Seymour, Rosalie Gasaway, Bill Moore, Juan Covian, Mike Hemp, Francis Hedley, Ann Cocksedge, Katie Moore, and Woodard Niethammer. 90 other people that dropped out of the 1970s General Plan process may have contributed as well. For more information on the Background, see Attachment B. During the 1970s General Plan, the city manager William Edgar fired the Planning Director Ricardo Castro in October 1973 because Castro refused to remove and revise ("gut") the citizen's committee recommendations for the General Plan. Castro was fired by the city manager and many of the above individuals wrote a public letter praising the work of Mr. Castro. Edgar and senior planner Robert Harris than watered down or outright removed the citizen's committee recommendations. I found much of this in the archived City Hall minutes. Quotes from area newspapers at the time included information such as: "Review committee member Woodard Niethammer accused city manager William Edgar and staff planner Bob Harris of playing a game of political charade for revising the citizens' committees recommendations after the fact in order to have a facade of citizen participation." The controversy was covered in all local newspapers for several months. The most in depth coverage was in The Independent in these particular articles: General Plan Citizens Praise Fired Planner (Front Page), October 31, 1973 Volume X, Number 120 Citizens' General Plan Recommendations Ignored by Ron McNicoll (Front Page, Lead Story) November 22, 1973 Volume X, Number 129 Gene Pons Raps General Plan Editing by Ron McNicoll (Front Page, Lead Story) November 25, 1973 Volume X, Number 130 Pleasanton General Plan Citizens Seethe by Andrew McCall (Front Page, Lead Story), December 21, 1973 Volume X, Number 141 2