CCMIN011910 - Laserfiche WebLink

concerns of the community. She said that what is done for one should be done for the other and asked if it is correct this development does not comply with Measures PP and QQ. Ms. Seto explained that the options provided within the staff report are merely samples and suggestions of language which describes the project elements approved by Ordinance No. 1961. Councilmember McGovern said options 2 through 4 fail to give the community its fair share in terms of an explanation of the referendum. She said it would be interesting to see ballot language provided by the community members who put this referendum forward and requested that they be asked to provide input. Councilmember Cook- Kallio agreed it should be fair but stated concern that those who signed the referendum petition have been represented as one voice. She noted that the petition only supported an election and did not indicate which way the City's 42,000 registered voters would lean. Mr. Fialho stated that the Council will be able to modify the language in real time when the item returns and confirmed that the concerns of those who helped to circulate the petition would be addressed. Councilmember Sullivan read from Page 2, Paragraph B of the staff report and asked if a "regular municipal election" would be any election where a municipal vote, such as a City Council election, was taken. Ms. Seto said that would normally be the case but that Pleasanton, unlike other general law cities, has not selected a date for regular municipal elections. The City's practice has been to time it in November of even years and under election law, both the June and November dates are those on which regular municipal elections could be held. Councilmember Sullivan requested a copy of the Election Code stating that. Councilmember McGovern requested a copy of the referendum cover petition. Vice -Mayor Thorne opened the item for public comment. Lee Fulton said this is not a question of whether or not residents want a park but rather about the irresponsible placement of 8,000 to 16,000 square foot mega- mansions on top of highly visible ridgelines. He said the park was a bribe intended to distract residents from the fact that the proposed development violates the spirit, intent, and recommendation of the previous General Plan. He said the proposal did not violate the letter of that General Plan only because of the neglect by this and previous City Councils to abide by the recommendation to establish an ordinance dealing with hillside and hilltop development in the southeast hills. He noted that the updated General Plan specifically prohibits this type of development and suggested that the project's supporters could be divided into 4 groups: (1) those paid by the developer, (2) select Kottinger Ranch HOA board members who believe this project will yield the fewest possible vehicle trips on Hearst Drive, (3) those who would support a park without regard for the impacts a project will have on hills and ridgelines, and (4) those who see this as a method of protecting the southeast hills. To the last, he said that to destroy the ridge views that the entire community enjoys on a daily basis simply so 1,000 people may enjoy the valleys behind them a few times a year is poor logic. MOTION: It was m/s by McGovern /Sullivan to accept the City Clerk's Certification of the Referendum Petition for Ordinance No. 1961 regarding the Oak Grove Development. Motion passed by the following vote: City Council Minutes Page 6 of 12 January 19. 2010