01 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

majority vote of saying the flexibility is there to change that. When there is a vote, it is much clearer that that vote has to be followed and the flexibility is not as great. Therefore, she would say to the majority of the Council that if you are going to put something on for July 15 to review, it should include something to be voted on by the people, and secondly, that there should be a moratorium on development in the hillsides until any vote of the people is taken on any other Initiative. She said this has come down to two developments; Oak Grove-51 large homes on the top of hillsides, and the Sarich home, with removal of a top of a hill, a 14,000 square foot home and 438 trees so it can be covered. Therefore, she fell this is an important issue to the people of Pleasanton. The Initiative offers positive things for the community and ensures there will be no development on 100 feet from a ridgeline and ensures there is no grading of slopes 25% or more for a residential or commercial unit and ensures a housing unit is finally defined. Councilmember Cook-Kallio agreed that the reason to put a measure on the ballot is because you have significant questions and concerns, agreed another reason is because one would think it has major, damaging impacts, which she thinks this will have. She said she is absolutely sure that all of this conversation will make no difference when a judge looks at the literal language, and this is why she would ask again that the Council look at this as an opportunity to get everyone involved in the process. She also voiced concern that the Initiative was not inclusive. There were 5,000 signatures, but there was no deliberative process except among the small group of those who collected signatures. She feels what this does is pit large groups of people against property owners. If we are going to be inclusive and deliberative, she said it is incumbent upon us to include all stakeholders which had not been done with the citizen's Initiative, and this is why she would call the measure a clarifying measure. Councilmember Sullivan said Councilmember Cook-Kallio is stating she objects because the property owners have not been involved, but to him, this is an argument as to whether or not to vote for the Initiative and is not an argument to undermine the Initiative. He said if she does not like that the stakeholders were not involved, then vote no and advocate for that, but he asked not to do something to squash a public process where people have earned the right to have their Initiative voted on. He felt the result is that people will vote no on everything because they are so turned off with the City Council. He thinks the meeting has clarified many items in the Initiative, and even though there are some which still need to be resolved; this can and should happen in a stakeholder process that includes the land owners, Greenbriar Homes, and others. He thinks this should and can happen after the Initiative passes. It may not pass, and the Council still has the opportunity to do something different. He acknowledged his disagreement on the impact issue and his criteria for a competing Initiative does not exist. Mayor Hosterman discussed Council priorities, said this Council has many, residents demand a lot from the Council, and the Council demands a lot from staff. She discussed some of the many completed Council priorities and the update of the General Plan. She disagrees with some fellow Council members in stating that somehow we are shutting down the public process and she thinks the opposite is being done. Having a clarifying measure on the ballot will give residents the opportunity to say yes, to be able to move forward, be part of the discussion and input, and she feels current Initiative is filled with language that is troublesome as far as being able to be implemented. She also said when projects are approved, the Council does so with input, each residential application comes through the process individually, and open space acreage is able to be preserved for Pleasanton. Property owners have rights which should be balanced with what is also good for the community. She said having a clarifying measure on the ballot is in the best interest of the public process and in the best interest of residents of Pleasanton. Special Meeting Minutes 16 June 26, 2008