01 MINUTES SPECIAL 06-26-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

John Carroll said it is clear that the Initiative process is necessary for further clarification, as the General Plan was not defined appropriately enough to explain how development is going to occur in the hillsides. He did not believe a competing measure would help clarify things, and said units are needed by BART and other transit providers to address smart growth development and not mansions in the hills. Mayor Hosterman closed the public comments. BREAK: The Council took a brief break and the meeting was reconvened thereafter. Vice Mayor Thorne thanked staff for responding to the Council's request fora 9212 report, said he believes the ultimate objective of the Council is and has been the development of a meaningful hillside protection ordinance and believes that the majority of those who signed the Initiative shares this with the Council. Over the last several months, he spoke to many people about this Initiative and the referendum for Oak Grove and has used the process to calibrate himself. Unfortunately opinions do tend to get polarized for one side or the other. He said most people were not aware that the Council had included the development of a hillside ordinance in a two-year work plan, the vast majority wants the Council to take some action right away, and most would prefer a collaborative public process to develop a hillside ordinance. He also heard and understands that the argument of having a public process on the ballot can be divisive but it does not necessarily have to be, he believes people will appreciate having the choice for either Initiative, thinks one way to make it divisive is to propel someone on the Council, prefers a collaborative public process over this particular Initiative because it is too flawed to be corrected by the definition of a few terms or a restatement of intent. It would become law the way it is written and any ordinance passed subsequently would have to use the Initiative as a guiding document. Motion: Vice Mayor Thorne moved to approve the third option, with direction to staff to return to the Council with a measure that asks a task force to evaluate the following: to define specific ridges based on engineering data, view lines, and geotechnical information rather than the 25% slope criteria; to evaluate the possibility of defining a specific elevation in South Pleasanton above which no construction could ever take place; to base accounting of housing units under the housing cap on a formula that actually has something to do with the impact those units have on the City's infrastructure; and include a timeframe by which this discussion must take place. Vice Mayor Thorne referred to the Save Our Community Park Initiative, which he co-authored, and saw a distinct difference between that Initiative and this one. He said the previous Initiative was designed to protect a public collaborative process that had already occurred. The task forces met in open session, were collaborative, there were joint meetings with the City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Initiative was intended to protect the public process. He sees this Initiative as circumventing a public process that has not yet occurred. Councilmember Sullivan questioned and confirmed with Vice Mayor Thorne that his motion assumed the council initiative would be a competing measure; he preferred it be a companion Initiative that asks for a collaborative public process. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she believes the agenda report identifies some of the problems with the Initiative, as does the number of questions that have been asked. She said the 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 Special Meeting Minutes 11 June 26, 2008