01 MINUTES REGULAR 07-15-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember McGovern supports the City Attorney preparing an impartial analysis as needed, said this was a citizen initiative and she felt the Council should go along with either Mr. Roberts' or Ms. Ayala's suggested language, to include the word, "citizen". Councilmember Sullivan agreed with the statements of Councilmember McGovern, said he thinks it is going to be very important that the community easily be able to differentiate between the two initiatives. He also believes that the ballot arguments in favor of the citizen's initiative be written by the proponents. Vice Mayor Thorne said he continues to believe the objective of the Council is to provide the community with a comprehensive hillside protection ordinance and this vision is shared by a vast majority of people. He does not think it serves any good to take cheap shots at the Council from those with opposing views. He hoped everybody could debate the issue in a civil manner and come up with an answer that is good for the entire community. He pledged not to take any cheap shots. Regarding the specific questions, he would have chosen a different ballot wording but agrees those who gathered the signatures need to be involved in the writing of the question. He would have opted for another question, but would go along with what is proposed, he supports the impartial analysis, which will be important to both Initiatives. Councilmember McGovern said she asked staff about what is affecting ridge views in hillsides currently, and she read from the Chamber of Commerce's letter, "PUD's must be consistent with the hillside policies of the General Plan. In Chapter 18.68 of the Code PUD District, including specific considerations and requirement for hill area development. Furthermore, most hill area development is required to prepare EIR's which provide an in-depth analysis of the impact and mitigation required. So although we don't have a comprehensive hillside ridgeline protection ordinance in place, we have the use of PUD and CEQA processes to protect hill areas, properties, and to address issues relating to hill area development based on our existing General Plan policies and programs." To her, what is being said is not currently correct, because we already have the things in place and they do not go away, and this means we do not have to agree on 10 units or less on hillsides. Councilmember Cook-Kallio agrees there should be a impartial analysis, appreciated Councilmember Thorne's comments about divisiveness, was concerned people get their information from editorials that do not show the entire picture. She looks at the potential measure as being something that is clarifying and for this reason she was concerned about Option 1 with the modification because it is divisive, it infers that it is all citizens; it is misleading and does not provide enough description. She would prefer Option 5, could live with Option 4, and does not like Option 1 because of it not being descriptive. Mayor Hosterman said she agrees with Councilmember Cook-Kallio, both should be more descriptive than one line and would support the direction of going with either Option 4 or 5. She feels the same way about a potential Council-sponsored measure on the next agenda item. Councilmember Sullivan said he was supportive of the language to include "citizens" because the citizens made this happen. His legal concern is that because the actual wording of the Initiative is "Save Pleasanton Hills and Housing Cap Initiative", if the word, "citizens' is put in it, could it be litigious. City Attorney Roush said he could not guarantee that if the word, "citizens" is put in, someone couldn't challenge it, but he does not think that the ballot question is the determining factor. What will be in the materials in terms of what voters are voting on will be the title, and putting in the word, "citizens' would not subject the ballot statement into a successful Writ of Mandate. City Council Minutes 6 July 15, 2008