My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01 ATTACHMENTS
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2012
>
112712 Special Meeting
>
01 ATTACHMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/16/2012 4:42:30 PM
Creation date
11/16/2012 4:42:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
11/27/2012
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
ATTACHMENTS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Councilmember Sullivan said it was disconcerting that many people have left. Regarding the <br /> West Foothill Overlay guidelines and when he was working on the General Plan, he saw many <br /> projects approved that the Planning Commission either denied or put conditions on that the <br /> Council then turned around and approved, sometimes with and without imposed conditions. <br /> They went through an extensive exercise in reviewing those guidelines and trying to strengthen <br /> them because they believed they were not complied with at the time, and their <br /> recommendations died somewhere in the process. He felt the matter is a divisive issue in town, <br /> doing initiatives and referendums is not easy or fun, and if people are going to this level of effort <br /> and obtain signatures enough to qualify, it should tell the Council something. Policy 5.1 says we <br /> should develop a hillside ordinance, so even with these other protections, people decided this is <br /> something that should be done. <br /> Councilmember Sullivan said he supported the approach on Oak Grove which had the same <br /> goal in protecting the ridge lands, but 5,000 people did not like that process. He suggested <br /> engaging the Initiative writers to work through issues, have a broad-based community task <br /> force, and by placing a City Council sponsored measure on the ballot and creating some <br /> competing measure would widen this divide and disenfranchise people more. He supported <br /> holding the 30-day study, form a community task force, bring back answers to questions, and if <br /> it is satisfactory to the Council and to the community task force, to move forward. <br /> Vice Mayor Thome agreed, believed there were good questions in the staff report and he would <br /> need answers to them, but he was not sure about having the process to formulate something to <br /> go on the ballot would be divisive. He felt it would provide people with an alternative of the <br /> public process used and put that on the ballot, but he would like to see what that looks like <br /> before agreeing to it. <br /> Councilmember McGovern felt there is definite concern in the community that there are things <br /> already contained in the General Plan and Specific Plan and the word "flexibility" keeps coming <br /> up, which means a change can be made, and sometimes large changes. What some people are <br /> looking for is that some of that flexibility goes away and they want assurances that ordinances <br /> passed have a lasting effect on development. She said Measure F was a positive initiative that <br /> impacted the western ridgelines, felt the public is happy with it, and she is looking forward to <br /> having the Council do something with both the hillside ordinance and grading ordinance. She <br /> believes the Council needs to look at policies that affect the ridgelines within the sphere of <br /> influence and any lands that could increase the size of the community and is worried that <br /> consensus will not be reached through formation of a task force unless there is open- <br /> mindedness. <br /> Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she agrees there should be open-mindedness and thought <br /> that questions put forth in the staff report regarding considerations illustrate how complex the <br /> issue is. She supported including everyone who has a stake in the matter, thinks the Pleasanton <br /> ridgeline is geographically different than the Southeast hills and should be treated differently, <br /> her interest is to ensure everyone is heard, believed this issue was intertwined with Item 21 and <br /> suggested waiting for that item to be discussed. <br /> Mayor Hosterman believed the Council is fervently supportive of hillside preservation, but how it <br /> addresses it in the southeast hills is very different than how the Council has addressed the <br /> Pleasanton Ridge. She would like to see an economic analysis as to what 1 h Initiative would <br /> do, get a clarification on General Plan policies, more analysis as to options the Council can <br /> take, and a city-initiated document, as the initiative is extremely clumsy and confusing. She <br /> wants the opportunity to engage the entire community in a discussion about hillside preservation <br /> and not be reactionary to a few people who came up with the Initiative's language. She wants <br /> City Council Minutes 11 May 20, 2008 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.