SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Pleasanton City Council—Adoption of Ch. 18.79 5/6/2013 Page 3 Voters are presumed to be aware of the current laws of their municipality. When the voters saw the term "structures" in Measure PP, they would be presumed to understand the meaning of that word to be the same as it was currently defined in the Municipal Code, and therefore to include streets and roadways. Other provisions in the City law at the same time lead to the same conclusion. For example, the Hillside Planned Development District regulations, in §18.76.120 requires that a finding be made that: Streets, buildings, and other manmade structures have been designed and located in a manner so as to complement the natural terrain and natural landscape. [emphasis added] Thus, streets and buildings are both included in the general category of"manmade structures." Similarly, §18.76.140 requires that an application be accompanied by, "A site plan showing the general locations of all streets, on-street and off-street parking, bicycle paths, riding trails, hiking trails, buildings, and other manmade structures. [emphasis added] Likewise, the Regulations for Planned Unit Development Districts, at §18.68.110, state that when considering approval of a PUD, the Council shall consider, "Whether streets, buildings, and other manmade structures have been designed arid located in such a manner to complement the natural terrain and landscape." [emphasis added] In all these instances, there is concern about the impact of streets, as well as "other manmade structure" on the natural environment. That same concern motivated Measure PP. It therefore follows that the same term, "structures" would be used, and that it would be expected to include streets and roadways. It should also be noted that at the time of Measure PP's preparation and enactment, the City was in the midst of a string of hillside development proposals, to which Measure PP was a reaction. The ballot arguments pro and con of Measure PP capture this dichotomy. The primary argument in favor specifically mentions, "a mile- long road spanning the tops of many of our Southeast Hills" and "the removal of extensive and wildlife and plant habitat." Measure PP was proposed to explicitly put a stop to this kind of activity. (See attached Declaration of Anne Fox for additional evidence on the intent of Measure PP's drafters.) Even Measure P's opponents recognized it would apply to roads. The primary argument opposing Measure PP warned that if passed, Measure PP would, "Stop the promised Happy Valley Bypass Road." Eliminating streets and roads from Measure PP's purview would run counter the intent of the Measure's drafters, and presumably of those who voted to approve it.2 In addition to these issues, the proposed Municipal Code amendment is being enacted in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). CEQA requires that any discretionary decision that may have an adverse effect on the environment be subject to environmental review. It does not take an expert wildlife biologist (although I am an experienced biologist and naturalist) to realize that this proposed amendment would have serious environmental consequences. This Measure QQ, a City Council-proposed countermeasure, was written by the Council which supported many of these hillside development proposals, and was written to allow the Council to continue its approval of such proposals. While it also passed, it received less votes that Measure PP. Thus, to the extent there is any conflict between the two measures, Measure PP must prevail. 2 It may be worth noting that one current council member signed the ballot arguments opposing PP, and the current mayor signed the argument supporting QQ. Consistent with their past positions, both support the City's proposed amendment reducing the scope of Measure PP.