Laserfiche WebLink
people of Pleasanton. The Initiative offers positive things for the community and ensures there <br />will be no development on 100 feet from a ridgeline and ensures there is no grading of 25% or <br />more for a residential or commercial unit and ensures a housing unit is finally defined. <br />Councilmember Cook-Kallio agreed that the reason to put a measure on the ballot is because <br />you have significant questions and concerns, agreed another reason is because one would <br />think it has major, damaging impacts, which she thinks this will have. She said she is absolutely <br />sure that all of this conversation will make no difference when a judge looks at the literal <br />language, and this is why she would ask again that the Council look at this as an opportunity to <br />get everyone involved in the process. She also voiced concern that the Initiative was not <br />inclusive. There were 5,000 signatures, but there was no deliberative process except among the <br />small group of those who collected signatures. She feels what this does is pit large groups of <br />people against property owners. If we are going to be inclusive and deliberative, she said it is <br />incumbent upon us to include all stakeholders which had not been done with the citizen's <br />Initiative, and this is why she would call the measure a clarifying measure. <br />Councilmember Sullivan said Councilmember Cook-Kallio is stating she objects because the <br />property owners have not been involved, but to him, this is an argument as to whether or not to <br />vote for the Initiative and is not an argument to undermine the Initiative. He said if she does not <br />like that the stakeholders were not involved, then vote no and advocate for that, but he asked <br />not to do something to squash a public process where people have earned the right to have <br />their Initiative voted on. He felt the result is that people will vote no on everything because they <br />are so turned off with the City Council. He thinks the meeting has clarified many items in the <br />Initiative, and even though there are some which still need to be resolved; this can and should <br />happen in a stakeholder process that includes the land owners, Greenbriar Homes, and others. <br />He thinks this should and can happen after the Initiative passes. It may not pass, and the <br />Council still has the opportunity to do something different. He acknowledged his disagreement <br />on the impact issue and his criteria for a competing Initiative does not exist. <br />Mayor Hosterman discussed Council priorities, said this Council has many, residents demand a <br />lot from the Council, and the Council demands a lot from staff. She discussed some of the many <br />completed Council priorities and the update of the General Plan. She disagrees with some <br />fellow Council members in stating that somehow we are shutting down the public process and <br />she thinks the opposite is being done. Having a clarifying measure on the ballot will give <br />residents the opportunity to say yes, to be able to move forward, be part of the discussion and <br />input, and she feels current Initiative is filled with language that is troublesome as far as being <br />able to be implemented. She also said when projects are approved, the Council does so with <br />input, each residential application comes through the process individually, and open space <br />acreage is able to be preserved for Pleasanton. Property owners have rights which should be <br />balanced with what is also good for the community. She said having a clarifying measure on the <br />ballot is in the best interest of the public process and in the best interest of residents of <br />Pleasanton. <br />Councilmember Sullivan said Councilmember McGovern brought up a good point; if it is a <br />citizen's Initiative, three members of the Council cannot change the policy. If the motion is voted <br />on and some sort of policy or regulation is developed, it could be put into the General Plan. All it <br />takes is a majority of the Council to change the General Plan, but he does not believe this is <br />what the community wants. He questioned if Councilmember McGovern's suggestion could be <br />considered that whatever ordinance or protections comes from this, i.e., would the Council <br />submit it to a vote of the people. This way, if they agreed with the Council, we would know this is <br />Special Meeting Minutes 16 June 26, 2008 <br />