01 - Laserfiche WebLink

MINUTES 1 CITY OF PLEASANTON REGULAR AND SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 4, 2013 Mayor Thorne called the special meeting to order at the hour of 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmember Brown, Cook-Kallio, Narum, Pentin, Mayor Thorne Absent: None PUBLIC COMMENT Stuart Flashman said he presumed at least one of the litigation items under discussion was the adoption of Ordinance No. 2066. He referred to his letter issued to the Council in which he noted that it would be improper to enact the ordinance without prior environmental review, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and that the ordinance attempts to modify Measure PP and therefore requires voter approval for adoption. He also presumed that the City Attorney's opinion that the ordinance is exempt from CEQA relied on the Northwood Homes vs. Town of Moraga case, which can be easily distinguished from this proposed ordinance. In that case, the Town of Moraga adopted procedural implementation guidelines for a previously adopted voter initiative. The court noted that adoption of the guidelines was ministerial and did not involve any discretion of the Town. The court also noted that there was no evidence the guidelines could have any effect on the environment beyond that of the initiative. In contrast, the City is attempting to make discretionary policy decisions beyond what the initiative itself decided and such decisions could have a direct and significant environmental impact beyond those of the initiative itself and therefore require analysis under CEQA. Any attempt to make discretionary policy decisions related to Measure PP require CEQA review, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approval by the voters on the ballot. Cindy McGovern, member of the Ridge and Hillside Protection Association Steering Committee, asked the Council not to approve the second reading of Ordinance No. 2066, which amends the Municipal Code to create Chapter 1870. As proposed, the chapter does the opposite of what its title implies and renders Measure PP ineffective in achieving its intent. The definitions used to write Measure PP were known to those who wrote PP and presumably the voters, have served to successfully guide the City's land use decisions for some time and should not be amended in an effort to circumvent the intent of Measure PP. For nearly one year, City staff, the Council and the Planning Commission agreed that roads, streets and their attenuated infrastructure are structures intended to accommodate development and are therefore restricted by the conditions of PP. These definitions were suddenly altered and additional exemptions created to meet the needs of two forthcoming projects. She noted that both Lund Ranch II and the Happy Valley Bypass Road were discussed in the analysis of the initiative on June 11, 2008 and statements made that if the initiative's new General Plan policies were to conflict with existing policies and specific plans, those policies and plans could not be implemented and would require revision for consistency with the new policies of the General Plan. She said the City Council has exceeded its authority by changing the initiative through an inappropriate process and the Association subsequently hired Mr. Flashman to represent and serve the voters of Pleasanton. She asked that the Council respect the public process and intent of PP and stop the process to undermine its provisions. Matt Sullivan, steering committee member, supported Mr. Flashman's written and oral comments. As a former member of the Council, Planning Commission and numerous other commissions and committees, he said he has a good understanding of the public process and limits of the Council's power. While the Council may personally believe that the proposed changes are appropriate, the Council does not have the power to implement said changes without CEQA review and a vote of the