Laserfiche WebLink
Pleasanton City Council —Adoption of Ch. 18.79 <br /> 5/6/2013 <br /> Page 4 <br /> proposed amendment would open up large expanses of Pleasanton hillsides to streets <br /> and roadways, facilitating further hillside development, reducing wildlife habitat <br /> connectivity, and potentially leading to the active destruction of wildlife, which would <br /> become no more than "road kill." Despite this, it undergone absolutely no <br /> environmental review. <br /> The City Attorney's office has opined that this measure is exempt from CEQA <br /> review because " ... citizen initiative measures are not subject to CEQA ..." However, <br /> this Municipal Code Amendment is not a citizens initiative. It is a council-initiated and <br /> council-approved amendment to the Municipal Code. The CEQA exemption for ballot <br /> measures most emphatically does not apply. Even if this were a measure that the <br /> Council proposed to put on the ballot to modify Measure PP, it would still first require <br /> CEQA review. (See, Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 Ca1.4th <br /> 165 [California Supreme Court determined that measure placed on the ballot by the city <br /> council must first undergo CEQA review].) In short, moving forward to enact the <br /> proposed Municipal Code Amendment would violate not only the California Constitution <br /> and Election Code, but also CEQA. <br /> You still have time to step away from the brink and avoid costly and unnecessary <br /> litigation. If you really believe that Measure PP should be modified to allow streets and <br /> roads on slopes of 25% or greater, you can, after full and proper CEQA review, put a <br /> measure to that effect on the ballot and ask the City's voters to approve it. However, it <br /> is they, not you, who enacted Measure PP, and they, not you, who have the power to <br /> change it. <br /> Most sincerely, <br /> Stuart M. Flashman <br /> Attorney for The Ridge & Hillside Protection <br /> Association <br />