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