01 06-26-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

proponents have said they want to protect the southeast hills and so has the Council. It seems that if the common good of Pleasanton were the focus, we would be working together to make sure the protection is clear. If the Initiative passes as is, even with all of the good intentions of Karla Brown explaining what they meant, the bottom line is that it will be the literal language that will prevail. She said if anything, the Council wants to make sure its documents are crystal clear, believes the only remedy will be litigating it or another citizen or Council-sponsored Initiative to fix it. She was baffled by the assertion made that Council has raised collectively $100,000 worth of developer monies. The perception that this Council is pro-growth is false; the last Councils have approved many more PUD's than this one and she received statistics from the Planning Department. From 1995-2004, between 2200 and 2500 units were built in the City. From 2005- 2008, there were only 200, which is significant. She said she is against bad law and bad government, said the Initiative was not a transparent process, and she asked to clarify those issues in order to have a true southeast hills protection regulation that works. She said the 1996 General Plan was meant to be flexible in order to address unintended consequences. She spoke about the many unclear items in the Initiative, said the definition of a housing unit could redefine what was previously exempted in the housing cap, it has the potential of changing the way the City has counted units, and the purpose of limiting housing units was to limit the impact on infrastructure including traffic. Senior living units have limited impacts yet the positive value of making space for the grandparents of the community outweighs that impact. She said the vagueness of the language begs the question about extended stay hotels and may not be the intent, but the literal language will stand if the Initiative passes, which impacts the availability of workforce housing. The agenda report alludes to the loss of fees from developers to both the City and schools if the Initiative is passed. The bypass road and alignment already approved is the first example that comes to her mind and. if the Council learns nothing from the lawsuit against the school district, it should be how important it is to be clear in its documents. She hoped the Council and proponents will do what is best for Pleasanton and help the Council clarify its shared goal of protecting the southeast hills. This could be clarified by using Measure F as a model, believes the Council should honor the commitments already made, voiced concern there are two different issues in this Initiative, major ridgelines need to be identified, make sure there is an environmental review, and it is clear that the time to act is now. She suggested acting in a deliberate, transparent way and be able to think through this in a timely manner. She likes the idea expressed in Section 5.1 of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the 1996 General Plan. Councilmember Cook-Kallio suggested Option 2 with some clarifying language; to re-affirm the 1996 General Plan and include the commitment that the Council would bring forth an ordinance that would be subject to environmental review (CEQA), and would identify elevation levels and major ridgelines. The measure would trump the other initiative if it received more votes and by putting this on the ballot, it would provide time to do a transparent job with input by other stakeholders. Vice Mayor Thorne questioned how his motion and Ms. Cook-Kallio's suggested changes correlate. City Manager Fialho said both could be joined as an outcome by re-affirming the General Plan policies and existing hillside regulations and creating a task force. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she did not want a task force and would rather look at a more open process and would rather say create an ordinance that identifies elevation levels and ridgelines in the same way Measure F did, subject to CEQA. Special Meeting Minutes 11 June 26, 2008