CCMIN042908SP - Laserfiche WebLink

said the referendum process has been an extremely painful and difficult process, believes the checks and balances were in place, and she asked the Council support the appeal to let three judges take a look at what this judge ruled. She said she is 100% comfortable that he will see that there is no development plan, and she hoped that the Council, in their closed session, will listen to its City Attorney and City Manager and stand up for the 5,000 people. Richard Pugh agreed with some of the earlier speakers, believes the involvement of the City has now moved on from consideration of an individual project and thinks it is important to affirmatively defend the ability of the City to perform its business. He said in the future the Council might actually be denying a project and faced with a ballot initiative where its decision to deny was overturned. It may have denied it in good faith because the Council believed some project would damage the City rather than be a benefit, which was the Council's decision for Oak Grove. He said it is important to look at the balloting process itself and how the City needs to defend its ability to do the work. He discussed his experience living in three different countries and the few rights citizens had in those countries, and urged the Council to give serious consideration to defending the process for its citizens. Howard Neely said his primary concern with the community right now is low-cost housing, said he was tired of hearing negative comments about the town, and he did not believe City funds should be used to promote the appeal. Mike Hamilton voiced concern with the City's propensity to spend money, the slow and deliberate pace of business in Pleasanton which has been costly, the general plan process and said from 2005 to 2007 the City's tax revenue increased from $160 million to $185 million. Even with the extra money there has been discussion of a parcel tax, a hotel tax, and higher taxes, and he believed the Council should be thinking more in the lines of fiscal discipline. Therefore, for the City to pay for an appeal is a wasteful use of money; however, in his mind he thinks it is a necessity that it be done because the City did not defend its actions in the original court case. He believed the City Attorney's actions or inactions were directed by the Council because of its support for the project, and he asked the Council to be consistent with their core principles. Julie Rasnick asked the Council to support the appeal, said supporting it does not indicate that the Council is reversing its Oak Grove decision but that it is protecting the rights of the people you are elected to represent. The City Council adjourned to Closed Session at 7:25 p.m. for the following purpose: Conference with Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation, pursuant to Government Code Jennifer Lin and Frederic Lin, Petitioners and Plaintiffs v. City Clerk of the City of Pleasanton, et al, Respondents and Defendants and Kay Ayala, et al, Real Parties in Interest and Defendants, County of Alameda Case No. RG07361370 The meeting reconvened in open session at 8:50 p.m. with all Councilmembers present. City Attorney Roush reported a motion was made in Closed Session concerning the retention of outside counsel to assist the Council in its decision-making process before it made a decision concerning the appeal. The motion failed by a vote of 2-3 (Ayes: McGovern and Sullivan; Noes: Cook-Kallio, Thorne and Hosterman). City Council Minutes 4 April 29, 2008