CCMIN080790 - Laserfiche WebLink

400 Ms. Dennis then stated that the City is not in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in placing this measure on the ballot because CEQA provides that General Plan amendments which have the potential of resulting in a physical change in the environment qualify as projects, and projects require an initial study by the lead agency to determine whether it would have a significant effect on the environment. She added that although the City has completed and certified the West Pleasanton Sphere-of-Influence Study for purposes of its application to LAFCO, the Council's ballot measure was introduced subsequent to that certification and declares itself to have different purposes than what the sphere-of-influence study was intended to address. With regard to the Section 1. Declaration of Purpose, Ms. Dennis stated that the measure implies that its passage would guarantee that Ridgeland property owners will annex to the City and that the electorate would be considering development projects which would create access roads and permanent open space facilities, the direct environmental impacts of which should be analyzed. She suggested that the measure be amended to remove the words "citizens" and "Initiative" from the title and that an initial environmental impact study be completed in compliance with CEQA requirements, before placing the Council's measure on the ballot. Mr. Lyman Higgins, 2171 Goldcrest Circle, stated that in the past, citizens have complained that ballot measures were not clear with regard to who sponsored these ballots and what the measures propose to do. He commented that it would help clarify issues if the phrases "sponsored by the City Council" and "sponsored by SPRC" be added to the titles of the respective measures. He likewise suggested that OPTION 2: Section 2 (c) be deleted and that the sentence "This measure may only be changed by a vote of the people" be added to both measures. He then inquired how long the City Council measure would stay in effect if it passes. Mr. Mercer replied that Council has no way of guaranteeing how long the measure would stay in effect and added that whichever measure passes would stay in effect until the citizens vote it out. Mr. Thomas P. Pico, Jr., 795 Neal Place, indicated his support for the SPRC Initiative. He stated that it would be inappropriate for the Council to propose a measure because it subverts the best interest of the residents and undermines the efforts of a lot of people. He commented that had the Council been more involved in the leadership process and taken a responsive role in the community, the public would not have had to resort to the Initiative process. Ms. Mohr asked Mr. Roush to respond to the legal questions addressed by Ms. Dennis. 3-7-90 - 8 -