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
disagrees with the initiative or because they differ politically with the proponents. If the Council <br />disagrees with the Initiative, you should get engaged in the election campaign, debate the pros <br />and cons of the issue and let the public vote, not try to undermine the Initiative or the process by <br />putting a competing Initiative on the ballot. He thinks the Council should use its power of 3 <br />votes very carefully but if we disagree with the Initiative, to try and defeat it by putting something <br />else on the ballot is wrong. <br />Councilmember McGovern thinks that on July 15 when the report returns, there should be an <br />,amended report, on the fiscal impacts-defining what an impact fee is, why it is used, and the <br />fact that if growth is not there, the impact fee is not needed for whatever the mitigation was it <br />was assigned for originally. Also, there are growth induced negatives not always measurable <br />from a fiscal aspect when it comes to quality of life issues whether it is traffic congestion or need <br />for additional services of any particular kind. She thinks Council needs to be clear to the voters <br />that impacts are not true losses to the City if growth does not develop. <br />She said she asked the City Manager what his recommendation would be to her and to Council <br />as to what direction should be given and his advice was to receive the report and to take no <br />further action. She said twice staff has recommended something to the Council which had not <br />been followed; one was to appeal the decision in the referendum challenge and now tonight is <br />to take no further action. She thinks the Council should therefore consider what staff has <br />recommended. She feels sad about some of the things that are going on because there are <br />some actual positives about the Initiative in the staff report, which do not come to the top such <br />as, "Transferring residential development from hillside property to infill properties would not <br />impact the city's ability to meet its current regional housing needs since the self-imposed limit to <br />our regional need housing allocation is 29,000 units; the housing cap. However, to the extent <br />that that 224 hillside units are developed in infill areas of the city rather than the hillsides, it is <br />likely that such units would be higher density, multi-family dwellings or smaller single family <br />homes. Some would likely be able to qualify for very low, low or moderate income units." She <br />said this would help Pleasanton in attaining our lower income share of the RHNA numbers, <br />which is a positive. She said another one is section 4.5, page 10, "If the Initiative is adopted, <br />there will be less development than anticipated in the General Plan in those hill properties. This <br />will result in more open space on those properties than has been expected, although some <br />development will still occur. To the extent that the development on those properties is located <br />on the relatively flat portions of the site, the remaining open space may continue to be used for <br />grazing purposes, thus increasing the amount of agricultural land in the hill areas." She said <br />those are positive things that should not be negated in the discussion. Therefore, we should be <br />looking for both negative and positive things said. <br />Councilmember McGovern said that the reason the Initiative is more protection for the public is <br />that it is voted on by the citizen and cannot be changed without further voter approval. In the <br />General Plan, there are more protections for the environment, open space, agricultural land, <br />and who knows what the new one will look like. Yet, the Council has the discretion through a <br />majority vote of saying the flexibility is there to change that. When there is a vote, it is much <br />clearer that that vote has to be followed and the flexibility is not as great. Therefore, she would <br />say to the majority of the Council that if you are going to put something on for July 15 to review, <br />it should include something to be voted on by the people, and secondly, that there should be a <br />moratorium on development in the hillsides until any vote of the people is taken on any other <br />Initiative. She said this has come down to two developments; Oak Grove-51 large homes on <br />the top of hillsides, and the Sarich home, with removal of a top of a hill, a 14,000 square foot <br />home and 28 trees so it can be covered. Therefore, she felt this is an important issue to the <br />people of Pleasanton. The Initiative offers positive things for the community and ensures there <br />Special Meeting Minutes 14 June 26, 2008 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.