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 questioned and confirmed with Vice Mayor Thome that his motion <br /> assumed the council initiative would be a competing measure; he preferred it be a companion <br /> Initiative that asks for a collaborative public process. <br /> Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she believes the agenda report identifies some of the <br /> problems with the Initiative, as does the number of questions that have been asked. She said <br /> the proponents have said they want to protect the southeast hills and so has the Council. It <br /> seems that if the common good of Pleasanton were the focus, we would be working together to <br /> make sure the protection is clear. If the Initiative passes as is, even with all of the good <br /> intentions of Karla Brown explaining what they meant, the bottom line is that it will be the literal <br /> language that will prevail. She said if anything, the Council wants to make sure its documents <br /> are crystal clear, believes the only remedy will be litigating it or another citizen or Council- <br /> sponsored Initiative to fix it. She was baffled by the assertion made that Council has raised <br /> collectively $100,000 worth of developer monies. The perception that this Council is pro-growth <br /> is false; the last Councils have approved many more PUD's than this one and she received <br /> statistics from the Planning Department. From 1995-2004, between 2200 and 2500 units were <br /> built in the City. From 2005-2008, there were only 200, which is significant. She said she is <br /> against bad law and bad government, said the Initiative was not a transparent process, and she <br /> asked to clarify those issues in order to have a true southeast hills protection regulation that <br /> works. She said the 1996 General Plan was meant to be flexible in order to address unintended <br /> consequences. <br /> She spoke about the many unclear items in the Initiative, said the definition of a housing unit <br /> could redefine what was previously exempted in the housing cap, it has the potential of <br /> changing the way the City has counted units, and the purpose of limiting housing units was to <br /> limit the impact on infrastructure including traffic. Senior living units have limiled impacts yet the <br /> positive value of making space for the grandparents of the community outweighs that impact. <br /> She said the vagueness of the language begs the question about extended slay hotels and may <br /> not be the intent, but the literal language will stand if the Initiative passes, which impacts the <br /> availability of workforce housing. The agenda report alludes to the loss of fees from developers <br /> to both the City and schools if the Initiative is passed. The bypass road and alignment already <br /> approved is the first example that comes to her mind and if the Council learns nothing from the <br /> lawsuit against the school district, it should be how important it is to be clear in its documents. <br /> She hoped the Council and proponents will do what is best for Pleasanton and help the Council <br /> clarify its shared goal of protecting the southeast hills. This could be clarified by using Measure <br /> F as a model, believes the Council should honor the commitments already made, voiced <br /> concern there are two different issues in this Initiative, major ridgelines need to be identified, <br /> make sure there is an environmental review, and it is clear that the time to act is now. She <br /> suggested acting in a deliberate, transparent way and be able to think through this in a timely <br /> manner. She likes the idea expressed in Section 5.1 of the Conservation and Open Space <br /> Element of the 1996 General Plan. <br /> Councilmember Cook-Kallio suggested Option 2 with some clarifying language; to re-affirm the <br /> 1996 General Plan and include the commitment that the Council would bring forth an ordinance <br /> that would be subject to environmental review (CEQA), and would identify elevation levels and <br /> major ridgelines. The measure would trump the other initiative if it received more votes and by <br /> putting this on the ballot, it would provide time to do a transparent job with input by other <br /> stakeholders. <br /> Vice Mayor Thorne questioned how his motion and Ms. Cook-Kallio's suggested changes <br /> correlate. <br /> Special Meeting Minutes 12 June 26, 2008 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.