CCMIN042908SP - Laserfiche WebLink

A motion was then made to file an appeal on behalf of the City which failed by a vote of 2-3 (Ayes: McGovern and Sullivan; Noes: Cook-Kallio, Thorne, and Hosterman). A motion was then made not to pursue filing an appeal and that motion carried by a vote of 3-2 (Ayes: Cook-Kallio, Thorne, and Hosterman; Noes: McGovern and Sullivan). Normally conversations that take place in Closed Session are privileged, but in light of the decision not to pursue further appeal in this litigation the Council discussed whether or not the privilege could be waived in this particular case in order to share with the public its reasons for voting as it did and that motion passed on a 5-0 vote. Councilmember Thorne said it has been very difficult for him to remain silent in view of a lot of the comments that have been made from the public and is pleased to have the ability to respond to some of the things that have been said over the last few months. First off, in its zealous pursuit of a compromise and even some placation of a certain political faction within our community, our staff and perhaps even our Council to a certain extent have lost sight of the bigger picture, and the project is a part of the bigger picture. The project started off as a 98 home proposal, after nine public hearings the Council came to a compromise which was based on a vision that eventually we wanted to have 2,000 acres of open space in the south Pleasanton Hills that protect our south Pleasanton Hills. That compromise calls for 51 rather than 98 homes, trails and a trailhead, access to those trails, a fire truck, $1 million worth of traffic mitigation, and 20 affordable homes somewhere in Pleasanton as well as a water tank. But the biggest thing that was given to us was 496 acres dedicated to the people of Pleasanton which will remain an open space in perpetuity, with maintenance provided by the development itself and not the public. He said this is a wonderful project for this community and we should not lose sight at this as a part of the bigger picture. If this project does not materialize, it could simply go back to a 98 unit home project or we can pass an initiative, which will take property owners rights from them. A small group did not like the project, referended it, and tried to reverse the Council's 4-1 decision to move forward with it which is the right of the public. In being approached by people about the project, he said the most frequent three things discussed were that the foreign developers are going to develop the Pleasanton ridges with 12,500 square foot homes that will look like hotels sitting on top of the ridges. However, there are three houses that could possibly be up to 12,500 square feet. There is absolutely nothing set in concrete about that. They will go through a rigorous public review process, the larger homes are restricted to the least visible of the lots in this project and the most visible lots are protected from the larger homes, and they can only be one-story houses. Second is, do not worry--once the referendum passes the property will be valueless and the Linn family will just give it to us anyway. He said this was actually told to people as they were approached to sign this referendum. The worst of the comments that were made to people that were asked to sign this referendum was that the Linn family was characterized as a bunch of foreigners; foreign developers who do not care anything about Pleasanton. He said the Lins have owned land in Pleasanton for years; Mr. Lin is a citizen of the United States who deserves to be treated with the same respect as any of the citizens of this country and particularly has the right not to be discussed in a racist way in a public forum. However, people have a right to make any statements they want to in order to collect signatures on a referendum. The one thing you must not do is violate the rights of others, and that is why the judicial process is such an important part of our representative democracy. City Council Minutes 5 April 29, 2008