CCMIN042908SP - Laserfiche WebLink

and against the project, cited the history of the project, said it is important to listen to those who support it and who have studied it. He said the Council needs to have faith in its Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Trails Committee and the hundreds of volunteers and not be persuaded by those who oppose it. He thanked the Council for making such tough decisions for the majority of the Pleasanton residents, asked to move on and spend time on helping to keep Pleasanton one of the top cities in California. Becky Dennis spoke on behalf of those who participated in the development of the plan for Oak Grove and said as a former person who was involved in referrending the previous project which did not have that same degree of public outreach and participation that this plan has had, there's a feeling among people who have worked on this plan that they are not being considered as much as the people who oppose the plan. She said the plan has public support, people elected the Council not to play favorites and she asked for the process to run its course. She likes the decision the Council made and the decision the judge made and asked the Council to move on. Anne Childs said it is a great feature of government when any single individual can speak out or challenge a government decision through petition, said if the Council chooses not to support the appeal, it will send a message that the Council will signify tolerance for anyone with financial interests on the line to try to impede a petition that goes against their interests and also that the Council's decisions are above public scrutiny. She said several thousand people indicated a desire to vote by signing a referendum, and if the Council believes its decision was right, then it should stand up to review in a vote by the public. She said it is a very poor reason not to support the appeal if it is because the Council wants to avoid a vote on Oak Grove and she asked Council to support the appeal. Marty Inderbitzen encouraged the Council to continue its support of the project, said they worked very hard with a lot of the City's direction to earn the 4-1 support for the project and asked that a majority move into a position where they are going to support an appeal of a judge's decision that was made on this referendum. He believed that the Council's vote to support the appeal will be perceived by the broader community as a reversal of its position to support the project and will be campaigned as now opposing the project. The Council may have a variety of different reasons why it would want to support the appeal, but those reasons will be lost on the voters during a subsequent election campaign. He said it would be a tragedy after the four years of effort that they went through, with the compliance with the City's planning and zoning codes, the municipal code, CEQA, the tremendous outreach, and having earned the Council's support for the project and now to be perceived as making a mistake. On that basis alone, he encouraged the Council not to support the appeal. He said they are not suing the City because they think it did something wrong, but because procedurally, they have to have some place for the process to stop. Neutrality in this will not hinder in one bit the efforts of the petitioners to pursue an appeal if they choose to do so. He said they have already filed a notice of appeal and we assume that they are going to go forward with it. They have a compliant law firm and they can argue the case very effectively, but he said he is more concerned about the long-term ramifications. Again, he asked the Council to support the position it has had in the past. G. Farmer said she does not want the City to spend its money on an appeal and believes the City did a good deal for the property owners. Jon Harvey believed the appeal would make the referendum process stronger, as there will be more and more initiatives and no due diligence required to really find out what needs to be done City Council Minutes 2 April 29, 2008