My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01 MINUTES REGULAR 07-15-08
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
081908
>
01 MINUTES REGULAR 07-15-08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2008 3:10:48 PM
Creation date
8/15/2008 3:02:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
8/19/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
01 MINUTES 07-15-08
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she still wanted to change the term from "management" to <br />"control." She also said she likes Option 4, but instead of saying, "it would preserve all scenic <br />hillsides", she would delete "all" or put the term under the City of Pleasanton's control because <br />there are hillsides that we view that we have no control over. She is more concerned that we are <br />specific with our language. In addition, on page 1 of 3 of the initiative, under D, she would like <br />changed, "all types of housing units are counted towards the voter-aaaroved maximum build-out <br />of 29,000 housing units'. She referred to page 2 of 3, E, 3rd and 4d' line, "apartments and mobile <br />homes have counted against the housing cap" and the correct term should be "counted toward <br />the housing cap." Also, she envisioned something like Measure F which was a good thing. It <br />was easy to understand, the definitions were clear, and there was consensus in terms of what <br />that meant. The issue of the citizen's initiative is that we are guaranteed there will be issues <br />because the terminology is not clear and the proponents could have added explanations as part <br />of that explanation and chose not to. She views this measure as something that clarifies the <br />protection, the preservation and that we want to control growth. The one thing not said much is <br />that it is important for the environmental protection; whether it is a negative declaration or a full <br />EIR. She believes that the citizen's right to do this is protected, it is constitutional, but so are the <br />actions of a governmental body. She is convinced that if this was really about protecting the <br />hills, that all of us would make this clear, avoid any litigation, ensure every citizen is heard. She <br />is interested in protecting hills, is offended by the term, "developer-friendly measure or initiative", <br />but thinks that the validated signatures does not represent the entire community. <br />Councilmember Cook-Kallio said if the Council-sponsored measure passes, then everyone will <br />get what they want. Proponents will be able to participate in whatever process is set up and she <br />wants to see all stakeholders speak their peace. The process should be inclusive and an <br />environmental process completed. <br />Councilmember McGovern questioned when projects become vested. Ms. Seto said there are <br />different ways. There are some situations where projects can have a vesting tentative map, <br />others can be vested because they have a development agreement in place, and some that did <br />not rise to the level of a large subdivision because there was no vesting tentative map or <br />development agreement, if they have spent significant sums in reliance on a building permit, <br />then they would be considered vested. <br />Councilmember McGovern questioned if the Oak Grove project, the Lund Ranch II project or the <br />Spotorno project is seen as vested at this time. City Attorney Roush said technically no, <br />although there may be an issue with respect to the Oak Grove project. There is a development <br />agreement that was approved by the Council. That agreement is attached to the PUD <br />development plan ordinance that was subject to a referendum petition, which was set aside by a <br />court decision, that decision is under appeal, so until the litigation is resolved, it is difficult to say <br />whether or not the development agreement is in place or not. If the litigation is resolved in favor <br />of the property owners then that agreement would be able to go into effect because it would pre- <br />date the initiative and vest those entitlements. <br />Councilmember McGovern said if this is approved, does this give additional rights to Oak Grove <br />to say through litigation that they have vested rights and anything that comes from this should <br />not have anything to do with them. City Attorney Roush said it will not give Oak Grove any <br />more or less vested entitlements than it has today. Councilmember McGovern said she had <br />problems with the language and wants to make sure as many hillsides are protected as <br />possible. She also wondered if a moratorium in the southeast hills could be a part of the <br />initiative and whether or not the Council would be willing to take whatever is accomplished to a <br />vote of the people. <br />City Council Minutes 12 July 15, 2008 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.