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
City Attorney Roush expressed concern whether the motion was completely within the scope of <br /> the particular item before the Council tonight. If there is support for the motion, he suggested it <br /> be brought back in August or September to be properly noticed. <br /> Councilmember McGovern thought this could be part of the initiative that went to the voters and <br /> she asked if this could be said in the initiative. City Attorney Roush said the vote of the people <br /> is more within the scope of what this item is about. Councilmember Sullivan said he would <br /> change his motion according to the City Attorneys suggestion. <br /> Mayor Hosterman suggested waiting to see how the vote plays out on November 4'". If the <br /> Council-sponsored initiative is favored by the voters, at that time, Council can ask staff to return <br /> with an opportunity to discuss a moratorium on building in the hillside pending ordinance <br /> language. Councilmember Sullivan said he wants to do it now, said people will start to get their <br /> projects approved and he will amend his motion to say that the moratorium process will return to <br /> Council. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she would not be in favor of this as the Council's <br /> agendas are full. <br /> Councilmember McGovern questioned if the moratorium language could be put in the initiative <br /> itself so that if the initiative passes, the moratorium takes place, and City Attorney Roush said <br /> this was legal. <br /> Motion: It was m/s by Sullivan/McGovern that if the Council-sponsored initiative prevails and the <br /> citizen's initiative is defeated, to bring back for Council's consideration the development of a <br /> hillside development moratorium until the outcome of the measure is known. <br /> Substitute Motion: It was m/s by Sulliven/McGovern that within the initiative itself it would be <br /> clearly stated that a moratorium on development within the hillsides of Pleasanton would occur if <br /> the initiative passes, and that whatever came out of the collaborative process may be ratified by <br /> the voters of Pleasanton. Motion failed by the following vote: <br /> Ayes: Councilmembers McGovern, Sullivan <br /> Noes: Councilmembers Cook-Kallio, Thome, Mayor Hosterman <br /> Absent: None <br /> Motion: It was m/s by Sullivan/McGovern that he and Councilmember McGovern write the <br /> rebuttal to the argument against the argument for. Motion passed by the following vote: <br /> Ayes: Councilmembers Cook-Kallio, McGovern, Sullivan, Thorne, Mayor Hosterman <br /> Noes: None <br /> Absent: None <br /> City Attorney Roush said a motion is needed for the overall resolution that would call for the City <br /> Attorney's impartial analysis, deadlines for the arguments, direct and rebuttal and all other <br /> procedural aspects as set forth in the resolution. <br /> Motion: It was m/s by Sullivan/Thorne to adopt Resolution No. 08-228 authorizing the <br /> placement on the November 4, 2008 General Election the City Council sponsored Pleasanton <br /> Ridgeline Protection and Growth Control Initiative, Authorizing Direct and Rebuttal Arguments <br /> concerning the Initiative Measure and setting submission deadlines, directing the City Attorney <br /> to prepare an impartial analysis, making determinations regarding Council-written Arguments <br /> and Requesting the Alameda County Registrar's Office to consolidate this Election with the <br /> November 4, 2008 General Election. Motion passed by the following vote: <br /> City Council Minutes 16 July 15, 2008 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.