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
implemented and can safeguard our opportunities to continue to provide balance in future <br /> development for the people of Pleasanton. <br /> Councilmember Cook-Kallio referred to the staff report, said if the correct term for the item is <br /> Council-sponsored as a measure, it should be changed to "measure." She said she did not like <br /> in Option 1 the term "management" because it implies things are simply being moved around. <br /> She preferred a term like, "control." She does want to control growth. <br /> City Attorney Roush said the term "initiative" is fine, but if the Council wanl:s to use the term <br /> "measure" it could also. <br /> Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she still wanted to change the term from "management" to <br /> "control." She also said she likes Option 4, but instead of saying, "it would preserve all scenic <br /> hillsides", she would delete "all" or put the term under the City of Pleasanton's control because <br /> there are hillsides that we view that we have no control over. She is more concerned that we are <br /> specific with our language. In addition, on page 1 of 3 of the initiative, under D, she would like <br /> changed, "all types of housing units are counted towards the voter-approved maximum build-out <br /> of 29,000 housing units". She referred to page 2 of 3, E, 3'" and 4th line, "apartments and mobile <br /> homes have counted against the housing cap" and the correct term should be "counted toward <br /> the housing cap." Also, she envisioned something like Measure F which was a good thing. It <br /> was easy to understand, the definitions were clear, and there was consensus in terms of what <br /> that meant. The issue of the citizen's initiative is that we are guaranteed there will be issues <br /> because the terminology is not clear and the proponents could have added explanations as part <br /> of that explanation and chose not to. She views this measure as something that clarifies the <br /> protection, the preservation and that we want to control growth. The one thing not said much is <br /> that it is important for the environmental protection; whether it is a negative declaration or a full <br /> EIR. She believes that the citizen's right to do this is protected, it is constitutional, but so are the <br /> actions of a governmental body. She is convinced that if this was really about protecting the <br /> hills, that all of us would make this clear, avoid any litigation, ensure every citizen is heard. She <br /> is interested in protecting hills, is offended by the term, "developer-friendly measure or initiative", <br /> but thinks that the validated signatures does not represent the entire community. <br /> Councilmember Cook-Kallio said if the Council-sponsored measure passes, then everyone will <br /> get what they want. Proponents will be able to participate in whatever process is set up and she <br /> wants to see all stakeholders speak their peace. The process should be inclusive and an <br /> environmental process completed. <br /> Councilmember McGovern questioned when projects become vested. Ms. Seto said there are <br /> different ways. There are some situations where projects can have a vesting tentative map, <br /> others can be vested because they have a development agreement in place, and some that did <br /> not rise to the level of a large subdivision because there was no vesting tentative map or <br /> development agreement, if they have spent significant sums in reliance on a building permit, <br /> then they would be considered vested. <br /> Councilmember McGovern questioned if the Oak Grove project, the Lund Ranch II project or the <br /> Spotorno project is seen as vested at this time. City Attorney Roush said technically no, <br /> although there may be an issue with respect to the Oak Grove project. There is a development <br /> agreement that was approved by the Council. That agreement is attached to the PUD <br /> development plan ordinance that was subject to a referendum petition, which was set aside by a <br /> court decision, that decision is under appeal, so until the litigation is resolved, it is difficult to say <br /> whether or not the development agreement is in place or not. If the litigation is resolved in favor <br /> City Council Minutes 12 July 15, 2008 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.