CCMIN042908SP - Laserfiche WebLink

defeats that purpose and that the ability for citizens to petition their government and overrule their City Council is one of the most important rights we have in this state. Because he believes the judge made the wrong decision, he believes the City needs to do something about it. At a minimum, a second opinion should be sought because the issue is completely wrapped up in politics on both sides of the question. He said he believes politics are driving a lot of decisions where good government should be driving the decisions and there is a lot of personal stake in this outcome. The City staff has invested a lot of time and effort into this over a long period of time. So the question to him is can any of us be impartial and does it benefit us all and this community to get an impartial opinion on this lawsuit and help us make that decision. Beyond that he wanted to join the appeal for the reasons just stated and this failed as well. What he feels most of all is disappointment because what we started out with four years ago was a very good goal, but the job is not done and the 5,000 people who signed those petitions are telling us that and we need to pay attention to that message, and if we do not it is at our own peril. Mayor Hosterman said several years ago when this project first came up in this town it was for 98 homes and a championship golf course that is just beyond her neighborhood. She felt at that time the project really provided for impacts to her neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods that were just too much. So at that time in the early 90's she was also part of the effort to referend that project and they were very successful, knowing full well that at some point it would be back and sure enough, little did she know back then that she would be serving on the Council, it came back. She decided the project was very important and she did not want to have to work that hard again and so she and Councilmember Sullivan brainstormed opportunities to see if they could come up with a project that would meet the needs of the developer, the bottom line, the property owner and one that the community could embrace, and also get something in return. Preservation of the southeast hills was identified as a Council priority and based on that priority they were able to get staff support to engage in this ongoing 3- 4year process. Up until now Council has been precluded from talking about this issue publicly because the process is such that the item must be placed on the agenda so that everybody is aware that the Council is going to have this discussion prior to having it. In her opinion, this was a marvelous process which included council members, staff, the property owners, the developers, members of the HOA and others throughout the community who had an interest in making sure that we had a good project that the community would support; that it was as environmentally sensitive as possible; that the community got something of value for it and we did-496 acres of open space in perpetuity forever. Her vision and Councilmember Sullivan's vision at the time was that if we could create this opportunity we could then go to the other property owners throughout the southeast hills and use this as a model. They envisioned securing a swath of 2,000 acres of open space from Callippe Preserve all the way across to Shadow Cliff and shrinking out urban growth boundary inward and they did it collectively with help from many people in the community. She thanked everybody who was listening and watching for their efforts, as she believed they have paid off. As far as the most recent turn of events the principle grounds for an appeal are that the lower court made a serious error of law. In this case, the court based its decision on the State of California Elections Code. The court's decision was fully analyzed in accordance with that State Code. She said she was not sure if the Appellate Court will disturb the lower court's ruling, but she believes that the correct course of action is to ask our state legislators to write statutory language that more adequately covers what signature-gatherers must have on hand to show prospective signers regarding this issue. In addition, state legislators should support this to look City Council Minutes 8 April 29, 2008