14 - Laserfiche WebLink

ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE PP Rebuttal Arguments in Support or Opposition There is a better way to protect our hills and beautiful of the proposed laws are the opinions of the authors. views. REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST In a law written to protect our hills, the language must be MEASURE PP clear. leaving no room for exceptions or interpretation. The arguments against Measure PP are untrue. Don't be That did not happen with the poorly drafted Measure PP misled. Please read Measure PP.You'll find Measure PP and it deserves a NO vote. clearly is the measure that protects our precious ridgelines Measure PP has unitended consequences that will cost NOW. Pleasanton taxpayers both time and money. Measure PP Measure PP(Protect Pleasanton): Iviil • Protects all ridges. Parcels of ten units or less are • Allow Mansions on our ridgelines under its exemp- already protected by city policy. tion for parcels of ten units or less • Protects property rights under existing General • Stop the promised Happy Valley by-pass road Plan. • Eliminate publicly accessible open space • Does NOT eliminate public open space. • Prevent additional senior housing • Does NOT prevent additional senior housing. This poorly written Measure also: • Does NOT count second units,per state law, toward • Violates state law by prohibiting second units for Housing Cap. in-laws or aging parents Pro-development advocates and individuals against the • Violates the rights of property owners within the voter approved Housing Cap want Measure PP to fail. urban growth boundary They simply want more housing in Pleasanton. • Lacks any environmental review or public hearings This council majority approved mega-mansion housing • Counts extended stay hotels rooms toward the developments on ridgelines that move more than 70.000 housing cap truckloads of dirt to create roads and housing pads. Now This poorly written measure fails to define key words and they are saying they want to protect ridges. Their actions phrases. The absence of clarification of these terms are in direct conflict with their words. Actions speak requires courts to interpret the vague language. If passed louder than words. Measure PP can only be corrected by another intitiative or This is black and white: years of litigation at the City's expense. • Measure PP Protects Pleasanton Ridgelines When protecting the hills, language must be clear leaving NOW. no room for exception or interpretation. • Measure QQ does not! The Council vision for the southeast hills is consistent Measure PP, signed by over 5,000 Pleasanton residents, with our General Plan. which includes open space and a was written by experienced city planners, slow-growth system of publicly accessible trails. proponents, open space advocates, trail advocates, and Under the Council's alternative the City will undertake a residents who want to preserve our ridgeines and voter- pmcess of staff research, public hearings and comment, approved Housing Cap. review by the planning commission, and only then, action By voting Yes on PP(Protect Pleasanton)and No on QQ, by the Council.The entire community will participate. your ACTION will ensure the quality of life we now There is a better choice, an ordinance supported by local enjoy. environmental groups, trail advocates and your City Vote Yes on PP(Protect Pleasanton)and No on QQ, Council.Measure QQ. www.SavePleasantonsHills.com Protecting the hills is important. Lets do it RIGHT. VOTE s/Matt Sullivan NO on Measure PR Pleasanton City Council s/Cheryl Cook-Kallio s/Brian Arkin City Council Member Planning Commission(1999-2006)&Trails Advocate s/Arne Olson s/Ben Tarver Planning Commissioner Former Mayor of Pleasanton/Friends of Pleasanton s/Becky Dennis Steering Committee Chair, Kottinger Place Redevelopment Task Force s/Karen Ellgas s/Dolores Bengston Park& Rec Commissioner Open Space and Trails Advocate s/Meribeth Detweiler s/Patricia Belding Human Services Commissioner Chairperson,Citizens for A Caring Community PLPP-3