SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

when they approved Measure PP in November 2008 in relation to the Happy Valley Specific Plan and Happy Valley Bypass Road are in the Objectives section: Infrastructure Objectives 2 1. To facilitate the provisions of water, sewer, and other utility systems within a well-integrated overall network. 2. To provide the opportunity for improved water and sewer service to Plan Area residents. 3. To develop a storm water drainage system which is adequate to accommodate significant storm conditions while meeting the Specific Plan environmental objectives. Terms "Structure" and "Infrastructure" Both Used in Measure PP Note that the city appears to have embarked on pursuing a loophole to allow developments of 10 housing units or more if it classifies "roadways" as infrastructure. This is not possible. The Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition clearly states: "Exempt 10 or less housing units and supporting infrastructure on "legal parcels" of January 1, 2007 from hillside development restrictions." CEQA and the Elections Code Measure PP was a voter-approved initiative that amended the 1996 General Plan. Therefore, introducing a new council-sponsored Pleasanton Municipal Code chapter that materially modifies Measure PP without a vote of the people violates the Elections Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City Council has altered clear and concise definitions present in the Pleasanton Municipal Code that were in effect when Measure PP was approved by the voters. Such a drastic change substantially diminish PP's overriding objective to "...protect our city from uncontrolled growth and the impact it has on ridgelines and hillsides, traffic, schools, water supply, and our overall quality of life." And must have a thorough CEQA analysis to do so. After the CEQA analysis, the city must then place the changes on the ballot and have voters approve or not approve those changes in a November General Election per text in the ballot measure and the Elections Code. Changes of definitions in these instances lack any environmental review. Previously, assistant attorney Lynn Tracy Nerland stated for the record that any change to a definition in the General Plan or Pleasanton Municipal Code would require a full CEQA analysis and review.3 Correspondence from Mr. Peter MacDonald At the last city council meeting, several residents read correspondence from Mr. Peter MacDonald, land use attorney. We would like to state for the public record that Mr. Peter MacDonald, ex-city attorney, signed the rebuttal arguments for the countermeasure QQ designed to defeat Measure PP http://smartvoter.org/2008/I I/O4.ca/aIm/pdf7PLQQ-3.pdfand published an editorial attached to this letter in the Pleasanton Weekly referring to it as a "NIMBY 2 Happy Valley Specific Plan-p.21 3 Planning Commission/Pleasanton minutes-6/8/2005 3