My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01 06-26-08
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
071508
>
01 06-26-08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/11/2008 2:38:40 PM
Creation date
7/11/2008 2:38:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
7/15/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
01 06-26-08
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Julie Testa said the time for a task force has passed, and asked the Council to simply allow the <br />citizen's Initiative to go to the voters without a competing one. <br />John Carroll said it is clear that the Initiative process is necessary for further clarification, as the <br />General Plan was not defined appropriately enough to explain how development is going to <br />occur in the hillsides. He did not believe a competing measure would help clarify things, and <br />said units are needed by BART and other transit providers to address smart growth <br />development and not mansions in the hills. <br />Mayor Hosterman closed the public comments. <br />BREAK: The Council took a brief break and the meeting was reconvened thereafter. <br />Vice Mayor Thorne thanked staff for responding to the Council's request fora 9212 report, said <br />he believes the ultimate objective of the Council is and has been the development of a <br />meaningful hillside protection ordinance and believes that the majority of those who signed the <br />Initiative shares this with the Council. Over the last several months, he spoke to many people <br />about this Initiative and the referendum for Oak Grove and has used the process to calibrate <br />himself. Unfortunately opinions do tend to get polarized for one side or the other. He said most <br />people were not aware that the Council had included the development of a hillside ordinance in <br />a two-year work plan, the vast majority wants the Council to take some action right away, and <br />most would prefer a collaborative public process to develop a hillside ordinance. He also heard <br />and understands that the argument of having a public process on the ballot can be divisive but it <br />does not necessarily have to be, he believes people will appreciate having the choice for either <br />Initiative, thinks one way to make it divisive is to propel someone on the Council, prefers a <br />collaborative public process over this particular Initiative because it is too flawed to be corrected <br />by the definition of a few terms or a restatement of intent. It would become law the way it is <br />written and any ordinance passed subsequently would have to use the Initiative as a guiding <br />document. <br />Motion: Vice Mayor Thorne moved to approve the third option, with direction to staff to return to <br />the Council with a measure that asks a task force to evaluate the following: to define specific <br />ridges based on engineering data, view lines, and geotechnical information rather than the 25% <br />slope criteria; to evaluate the possibility of defining a specific elevation in South Pleasanton <br />above which no construction could ever take place; to base accounting of housing units under <br />the housing cap on a formula that actually has something to do with the impact those units have <br />on the City's infrastructure; and include a timeframe by which this discussion must take place. <br />Vice Mayor Thorne referred to the Save Our Community Park Initiative, which he co-authored, <br />and saw a distinct difference between that Initiative and this one. He said the previous Initiative <br />was designed to protect a public collaborative process that had already occurred. The task <br />forces met in open session, were collaborative, there were joint meetings with the City Council <br />and Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Initiative was intended to protect the public <br />process. He sees this Initiative as circumventing a public process that has not yet occurred. <br />Councilmember Sullivan questioned and confirmed with Vice Mayor Thorne that his motion <br />assumed the council initiative would be a competing measure; he preferred it be a companion <br />Initiative that asks for a collaborative public process. <br />Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she believes the agenda report identifies some of the <br />problems with the Initiative, as does a number of questions that have been asked. She said the <br />Special Meeting Minutes 10 June 26, 2008 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.