Laserfiche WebLink
Karla Brown spoke on behalf of all three authors of the Initiative. She said the initiative is not <br />Kay Ayala's alone but that Ms. Ayala one of many who want to protect Pleasanton's quality of <br />life. She clarified that the intent of the Initiative is to protect hills from development, direct <br />development away from lands with environmentally sensitive features or with primary open <br />space values, and to make the General Plan's definition of a housing unit consistent with the <br />federal and state definitions. She quoted portions of the staff report the proponents agree with, <br />believed there was no need for the Council to place a competing Initiative on the ballot and <br />asked for their Initiative to stand on its own for residents to decide. She provided a letter to the <br />City Clerk identifying those portions of the of the staff report that the proponents agree with. <br />Councilmember Sullivan confirmed that the intent of the Initiative is to control construction of <br />residential and commercial structures and not roads that may be on 25% slope. <br />Mayor Hosterman questioned how something like an extended stay hotel would be counted. <br />Ms. Seto said many of those types of commercial facilities have microwaves, stoves, and <br />bathrooms which would arguably fall under the Initiative's definition of a housing unit, but staffs <br />practice has not been to count them. <br />Steve Brozosky spoke regarding direct access to policymaking processes through the initiative <br />and the referendum process, and quoted the Chair for the Speaker's Commission on the <br />California Initiative process. He said the Council-sponsored Initiative was voted on in 1996 and <br />asked voters to accept a housing unit cap, but there was no definition of what a housing unit <br />was. He said as a school board member, the information about the school district fees was <br />categorically incorrect as well as multi-family houses and impacts and he asked to let the <br />citizen's Initiative stand on its own. <br />Brian Arkin questioned whether the poison pill aspect could only affect the hillside and not the <br />housing cap aspect. He also believed that the records show that developers have spent <br />hundreds of thousands of dollars on three Council campaigns collectively, and he asked the <br />Council to say no to the competing Initiative. <br />Dolores Bengston said 80% of the City's open space is in farmland and parks, spoke of her <br />work in saving trees and environmental work, is against the Initiative, and it troubles her that the <br />stakeholders do not have input and the authors added a section that provides a more strict <br />definition of a housing unit. She said the Initiative is not good law, believes everyone is sincere <br />in their desire to make Pleasanton a better place to live, and suggested including residents and <br />other stakeholders the opportunity to participate in a task force to consider new regulations for <br />hillside development which would result in responsible, fair and environmentally sound <br />guidelines. <br />John Butera said one thing not addressed is the current economy, property values, revenues, <br />and taxes, spoke regarding airport safety and encroaching development, and cited recent fire <br />dangers. He asked the Council not to disregard what a few people did to judge the Initiative and <br />he asked not to dilute it with the Council's own Initiative. <br />Laura Danielson asked the Council not to place a competing Initiative on the ballot. <br />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 />Special Meeting Minutes 10 June 26, 2008 <br />