|
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2008
<br /> AGE 4-The Independent,OCTOBER 9,2008
<br /> •
<br /> IA Ls• attic 1:c: ?mir•.:+;;�ry -.
<br /> 3 7 1LU SSS's�'' i.d� t r-?a—r
<br /> v.e,,.,.f- F.- fir. p^n g : 1 I .-- 1 t,y;7 c .�F2 'T"1.. _
<br /> i .F7 "
<br /> '—= ..,,ss ,_.it c17r^.,,'ew Via.,
<br /> Pleasanton Measure PP —`Yes Bay Area News Group-East Bay -" --
<br /> Pleasanton Measure QQ No _ •
<br /> Having .preserved the ridgelands• an the west,
<br /> Yes PIno on Pleasanton is now turning its eyes to the southeast hills. • on Q
<br /> Measures PP.and QQ are all about this struggle. -
<br /> Li
<br /> Both aim to protect the hills. Measure PP would take E HAVE never been big fans of bal-
<br /> effect immediately if passed while QQ-would launch a - . lot-boa policy making.But when our
<br /> process to adopt a protectionist ordinance, a process that elected representatives fail to carry out
<br /> could take several years to complete. .
<br /> their responsibilities,voters are left to
<br /> Measure PP is on.the ballot as the result of a citizen- do the job.Such is the case in Pleas-
<br /> anton,where voters should approve Measure PP,a
<br /> driven initiative that was signed by more than 5000
<br /> Pleasanton voters. citizens initiative to regulate hillside development,and
<br /> QQ spot to the City Cound which put reject Measure QQ,another stalling tactic by the City
<br /> owes its ballot ty p Council.
<br /> -
<br /> it there in a 3-2 vote. The general plan already calls•for •The genesis of this battle goes back more than 10
<br /> the council to adopt an ordinance to protect the hills; years to the city passage of a general plan that called for
<br /> voter approval is simply unnecessary here. The only developing a ridgeline preservation ordinance.It never
<br /> possible motive for Measure QQ is to muddy the election happened.Meanwhile,last year,the council approved a
<br /> and undermine the original measure. hillside subdivision of 51 custom homes,ranging in size
<br /> •Some of Measure PP's supporters have begun to from 6,000 to 12,500 square feet.
<br /> articulate along-range vision:They point to the western For some residents,that was the final straw.They
<br /> ridgelands, where through a mix o citizen activism and collected more than 5,000 signatures to place Measure
<br /> land acquisitions by the East Bay Regional Park Disbict; PP on the ballot.It's a reasonable measure that would
<br /> properties that once were thought to be destined for
<br /> prohibit grading on slopes of 25 percent or greater or
<br /> urbanization-are instead today a great park (Pleasanton within 100 vertical feet of a ridgeline.The measure
<br /> Ridge Regional Park), preserved- as open space for •
<br /> would also establish a stricter definition of a housing
<br /> generations to come.The.visionaries believe the southeast unit,reducing the number left under the voter-approved
<br /> citywide 29,000-unit housing cap. •
<br /> hills can be similarly saved. Ordinarily,we would encourage Measure PP backers
<br /> Measure PP in itself won't accomplish that, but its to instead take their case to the City Council and work
<br /> passage would empower the whole movement toward through the legislative process.But they have waited
<br /> saving the area _ - . .• long enough with no results.Indeed,the council knew
<br /> With its preservationist thrust, Measure PP represents for nearly a year that the initiative was coming.Yet,the
<br /> the true feeling of the community*.toward .the hills best response council members could come up with was
<br /> surrounding their city:In election after election since the a counter measure designed to negate the original initia-
<br /> 1980s, the people have stated by overwhelming margins Vie•
<br /> that they want the hills saved. • •If Measures QQ passes with more votes,it would
<br /> We say to every Pleasanton voter who wants that block Measure PP from taking effect.Yet,Measure QQ
<br /> mandate carried out: pass Measure PP; reject QQ. is.nothing more than an empty promise.In essence,the
<br /> -- - re pP; reject t _ council-backed measure is a reaffirmation of old poll-
<br /> cies and establishment of a process for development•
<br /> of hillside guidelines.There is no assurance that the
<br /> Protect Pleasanton council would actually approve those policies once they
<br /> were drafted.Meanwhile,at least another year would
<br /> yEspp on be lost,providing an opening for even more hillside and
<br /> ridgeline development.
<br /> _ - It should have never come to this.If the City Council.
<br /> - SAVE Pleasanton H MILS had done its job over the past decade,there would have
<br /> been no need for Measure PP.But,now that it's on the
<br /> -
<br /> ballot,the council's response with Measure QQ shows
<br /> Q11 - that it's still not serious about hillside regulation._ Q
<br /> ___Endorsed by The Valley Times,
<br /> The Independent, and The Herald
<br /> newspapers
<br />
|