|
driveway on private property used to access a specific house or facility. A street or
<br />roadway, by contrast, is a right of way used for general access.
<br />Voters are presumed to be aware of the current laws of their municipality. When
<br />the voters saw the term "structures" in Measure PP, they would be presumed to
<br />understand the meaning of that word to be the same as it was currently defined in the
<br />Municipal Code, and therefore to include streets and roadways.
<br />Other provisions in the City law at the same time lead to the same conclusion.
<br />For example, the Hillside Planned Development District regulations, in §18.76.120
<br />requires that a finding be made that:
<br />Streets, buildings, and other manmade structures have been designed and located in a
<br />manner so as to complement the natural terrain and natural landscape. [emphasis
<br />added]
<br />Thus, streets and buildings are both included in the general category of "manmade
<br />structures." Similarly, §18.76.140 requires that an application be accompanied by, "A
<br />site plan showing the general locations of all streets, on- street and off - street parking,
<br />bicycle paths, riding trails, hiking trails, buildings, and other manmade structures.
<br />[emphasis added]
<br />Likewise, the Regulations for Planned Unit Development Districts, at §18.68.110,
<br />state that when considering approval of a PUD, the Council shall consider, "Whether
<br />streets, buildings, and other manmade structures have been designed and located in
<br />such a manner to complement the natural terrain and landscape.' [emphasis added] In
<br />all these instances, there is concern about the impact of streets, as well as "other
<br />manmade structure" on the natural environment. That same concern motivated
<br />Measure PP. It therefore follows that the same term, "structures" would be used, and
<br />that it would be expected to include streets and roadways.
<br />It should also be noted that at the time of Measure PP's preparation and
<br />enactment, the City was in the midst of a string of hillside development proposals, to
<br />which Measure PP was a reaction.' The ballot arguments pro and con on Measure PP
<br />capture this dichotomy. The primary argument in favor specifically mentions, "a mile -
<br />long road spanning the tops of many of our Southeast Hills" and "the removal of
<br />extensive and wildlife and plant habitat." Measure PP was proposed to explicitly put a
<br />stop to this kind of activity. (See attached Declaration of Anne Fox for additional
<br />evidence on the intent of Measure PP's drafters.) Even Measure PP's opponents
<br />recognized it would apply to roads. The primary argument opposing Measure PP
<br />warned that if passed, Measure PP would, "Stop the promised Happy Valley Bypass
<br />Road." Eliminating streets and roads from Measure PP's purview would run counter the
<br />intent of the Measure's drafters, and presumably of those who voted to approve it.2
<br />Finally, I would note two further items. One is that in 2012, the City Council
<br />explicitly and formally adopted an interpretation of Measure PP that accepted that
<br />roadways are structures and are therefore excluded from areas of steep slopes. (See
<br />Attacvhment 1.) The other is that in June of this year, commenting to the Planning
<br />Commission on this project and issue, staff candidly admitted that the reason staff was
<br />advocating that roadways be excluded as structures was, "because it is necessary to
<br />implement staffs recommendation." (Attachment 2 hereto.) Allowing staff's desire to
<br />1 Measure QQ, a City Council - proposed countermeasure, was written by the Council which supported
<br />many of these hillside development proposals, and was written to allow the Council to continue its
<br />approval of such proposals. While it also passed, it received less votes that Measure PP. Thus, to the
<br />extent there is any conflict between the two measures, Measure PP must prevail.
<br />2 It may be worth noting that one current council member signed the ballot arguments opposing PP, and
<br />the current mayor signed the argument supporting QQ. Consistent with their past positions, both support
<br />the City's proposed amendment reducing the scope of Measure PP.
<br />
|