01 MINUTES SPECIAL 06-26-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Roush agreed that this was correct in terms of amending a General Plan. He said it may not be possible to harmonize the two and staff would come back and ask Council to amend that portion of the General Plan which it could amend or have the Council put an Initiative in front of the voters that would amend what the voters had approved. Councilmember Sullivan referred to page 5 of the agenda report, the competing measure, and said if it passes, then the citizens Initiative would not go into effect. Mr. Roush said alternatively, if there is a competing Initiative, it would have a provision in it that if both measures pass and the Council-sponsored Initiative got more votes, the other Initiative would not be in force and he provided the example of Propositions 98 and 99. Sullivan questioned if that provision had been tested in the courts and how legal was it. Mr. Roush said it has been tested legally. Vice Mayor Thorne asked staff that if direction were given from the Council to bring back language which would define and identify specific ridge lines to be protected, based on engineering data, view lines, geotechnical data, and define an elevation in south Pleasanton, and provide language for a process for counting houses under the housing cap based on actual impact to the infrastructure, could this be done by July 15`n Mr. Roush said his concern would be more on the issue of whether there would have to be an environmental analysis that would get in the way of having that kind of substantive Initiative in November. City Manager Fialho said staff would need to have the Council discuss this in more depth. He said staff spent a lot of time identifying the options in the report and were careful to put them forward the way they are reflected because it knows that in these three instances, staff can accomplish this by July 15`n. Staff could bring ballot language to the Council that does not cause CEQA to be triggered. Vice Mayor Thorne asked if the 119 to 224 units to be developed which would be moved to the valley floor included Oak Grove. Mr. Iserson said it includes a scenario where Oak Grove would not be built as proposed and the default provisions are included in that range of units. Councilmember McGovern referred to 25% or greater slope which has been in the General Plan since 1986 and discussed in many forms in the past. She is having a difficult time understanding why there is no definition for 25% slope because the City has been developing on hillsides since 1986 when 25% slopes were first discussed. She believes the City should continue what it has been doing since 1986. City Manager Fialho said staff can identify from a geotechnical perspective what a 25% slope is, but by prohibiting construction on 25% slopes, staff has to be absolutely clear on the methodology used. Currently there is a certain degree of flexibility in what is allowed on 25% slopes. Special Meeting Minutes 7 June 26, 2008