01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Dolores Bengtson asked the Council to submit the issue to the voters rather than repealing the ordinance because that choice was clearly allowed by the Referendum Petition and many people who felt the public had a right to vote on the matter and supported the referendum for that reason. She also recommended the June election date. Jan Batcheller said Measures PP and QQ occurred after the owner purchased his property and asked why the public felt within its rights to retroactively impose these standards. She said she distinctly heard petition proponents asking for signatures to place this item on the ballot and now hears the same people demanding repeal. She noted the project would garner $2 million in development fees for the school district as well as another $300,000 annually and asked that the Council give that ample consideration as well. John Butera urged the Council to rescind its approval. Julie Testa asked that the Council not to waste any more taxpayer dollars and rescind its approval of the project. She said Measures PP and QQ were clear mandates. Martin Inderbitzen, legal counsel representing the Lin's and James Tong of Charter Properties, said he did not in any way believe Measure PP to be a referendum on Oak Grove and noted that it would in fact allow for development of homes immediately on the ridge tops, provided the total development were limited to fewer than 10 units. He said the issues raised at the time of that initiative were not presented relative to Oak Grove Scott Raty, Chamber of Commerce, said it was repeatedly stated that the public wanted the opportunity to vote on the matter and yet one would now think that is the wrong thing to do. Mr. Raty acknowledged the efforts of those who initiated the petition, said they are owed their debt and that it should come on the ballot as soon as possibe. He suggested that waiting would only confuse the issue with others placed on the November ballot and asked the Council to select the June election Mayor Hosterman closed the item to public comment. Mayor Hosterman asked staff to comment on all the other hillside protection measures that, aside from PP and QQ, Councils have passed over the years. Mr. Fialho said he was not prepared for the question but that the Urban Growth Boundary, Pleasanton Ridge Initiative, and other general policies related to how structures can be developed on ridges or hills come to mind. He said the City's General Plan contains quite a bit of hillside protection policy. Mayor Hosterman asked at what point a property owner could sue the City for development rights. Mr. Lowell stated that local governments have the ability to regulate land uses on property within their jurisdictions. At the same time, the Constitution protects private property rights and governmental regulation can be considered a taking of those rights without just compensation if the governmental action deprives the property owner of all economically beneficial use of the property. He said he did not believe the City to be at that point. BREAK Mayor Hosterman called a brief recess and thereafter reconvened the regular meeting. Councilmember McGovern said she was told by staff throughout the General Plan update that it provided no land use entitlements, which is why she voted as she did. City Council Minutes Page 6 of 15 February 16, 2010