01 REGULAR MINUTES - Laserfiche WebLink

this is subject to referendum, people on both sides should present information accurately, honestly and not mislead, as he thought such issues are easily argued in sound bites. As big as the project is, it is complicated and it cannot be presented in a one sentence argument or statement. He also asked the citizens prior to signing a petition or not signing a petition, to do their homework and research the project. Councilmember Thorne said he was comfortable in relying on the answers from staff on issues raised, echoed what Councilmember Sullivan has asked the community to do, knows things can be battled out, said it is hard to understand how this project can be looked at from an impact or benefit point of view without supporting it, and could support the additional self-terminating language. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said her views are well-known from the last two Council meetings and said she was concerned about the characterization that people were excluded from the process. She appreciates how long this has taken and the negotiations that went on, said she recognizes the disagreement, understands there is concern over sizes of homes, appreciates this can be appealed to the Planning Commission and City Council, recognized people's rights to pursue referendums on anything approved by the Council and echoed the fact that it is incumbent upon citizens to convey this as accurately as they can. She does not agree with the verbiage to combine the PUD with development agreement and thinks the complaints heard have been about the PUD. She said there has been a lot of hard work that went into the development agreement, and that it would be unlikely for the developer to continue if the PUD referendum was successful, but in the event they chose to, she wanted to preserve the development agreement because it is the crown of the entire ordinance, so she would not support the self-terminating language for that reason. Councilmember McGovern asked that once the Callippe butterfly information returned that the Council hear it on the Consent Calendar. It affects a large amount of habitat; there is discussion that it might be mitigated off-site and she questioned if it were possible to actually vote on whether this can be done or not. Mr. Iserson said the map is accurate, he was not sure if it was something the Council can vote on, but was more of a determination of the US Fish and Wildlife. He said he could provide the Council with any information obtained or decisions made. Councilmember McGovern acknowledged there were appeal rights, but she thought this did not really relate to work from the very beginning of changing a house before the Zoning Administrator agrees to it. She also questioned when the hillside initiative would be brought back to the Council and said the newspaper indicated the City should actually approve the one the citizens were looking at. City Manager Fialho said the Council asked that staff return with a hillside ordinance but did not specify a timeframe. Staff had planned to bring something to the Council early 2008, but staff could accelerate this if there is an interest. Councilmember McGovern asked that if the hillside ordinance were approved, would the development at Oak Grove look different than it is proposed, which would include the 25% slope and ridge/hilltop building restrictions. Mr. Iserson said this was hard to say, but he felt it would change to some extent. Councilmember McGovern felt the trade-off was too great, believes there were more residents in Pleasanton looking at the ridges than will be walking, thought it was a major change and did not want that to be her legacy. She believed there is a better plan and that the City can get the parkland and she thought the Council should continue to work to make it better. City Council Minutes 12 November 6, 2007