SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Council had previously rejected on Nov. 27, 2012.1 RHPA finds this perplexing to say the least. The Ordinance now proposes to "grandfather in" roadways identified in a previously-adopted specific plan covering part of the hillside area. The Ordinance purports to do so based on the idea that these roadways are "vested" and therefore would not be affected by the initiative. This is incorrect. A specific plan is a legislative act. As such, the provisions of a specific plan are never vested. (Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Corn. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 785; Oceanic California, Inc. v. North Central Coast Regional Corn. (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 57, 70.) Consequently, because the general plan takes precedence over any conflicting provision of a zoning ordinance or specific plan, the provisions of Measure PP supplant any conflicting provisions previously-adopted specific plans, and the provisions of Measure PP, rather than those of the specific plan, must be adhered to in any development proposal for the area.2 Exempting such conflicting provisions from Measure PP may only be done through the approval of Pleasanton's voters after full environmental review under CEQA. Second, the Ordinance would further broaden the exemption from Measure PP to cover city facilities and commercial structures. Measure PP included no such exemptions. The only exemption provided for in Measure PP is, "Exempt from this policy are housing developments of 10 or fewer housing units on a single property that was, as of January 1 2007, 'legal parcel' pursuant to the California Subdivision Map law." Any attempt to enact additional exemptions, including specifically attempting to exempt city facilities or commercial structures, would again require both environmental review and voter approval. Third, the Ordinance proposes to read out of existence an earlier-enacted ballot measure, Measure F, which set development limitations for the Pleasanton Ridge area. (See Measure F, adopted by Pleasanton voters in November 1993.)3 The City apparently believes that Measure PP repealed by implication some provisions of Measure F. Such is not the case. In fact, Measure PP and Measure F are complementary measures that supplement rather than conflict with each other. It is a long-standing canon of statutory interpretation that repeal by implication is disfavored. (Sanford v. Garamendi(1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1109, 1114-1115.) As specifically applied to a ballot measure, such repeal will only be considered if the ballot measure itself, or accompanying ballot materials, indicated the intent for such a repeal. (Id.) Neither the text of Measure PP nor any of the ballot materials provided to the voters considering Measure PP indicated the intent to repeal the provisions of the earlier- enacted Measure F. Barring a demonstrated direct conflict (and there is none), the two measures both continue to be fully effective. An implementation ordinance could properly explain how the two measures should be coordinated in areas where both apply, but any attempt of the proposed implementing ordinance to eliminate provisions of Measure F would be invalid as an ultra vires act by the Council. City staff is apparently representing that RHPA wants the City to map all of the ridges that would be covered by Measure PP, using the criteria that would have been p.12, Option Three—November 27, 2012 Staff Report. 2 Further, it appears from perusal of the specific plan involved (the North Sycamore Specific Plan)that the roadways associated with Lund Ranch II that the City intends to grandfather in are not within the specific plan area, although they are identified in an appendix discussing cumulative development near the specific plan area. 3 Measure F, as adopted by Pleasanton voters in 1993, explicitly amended the general plan and incorporated an attached "Exhibit B" into the General Plan. For convenience, a copy of the initiative is attached hereto. That exhibit is nowhere to be found in the current Pleasanton General Plan. Nevertheless, never having been repealed by Pleasanton voters, it remains in effect.