My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN052008
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
CCMIN052008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/21/2008 4:09:35 PM
Creation date
8/21/2008 4:09:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/20/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN052008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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 Sullivan said it was disconcerting that many people have left. Regarding the <br />West Foothill Overlay guidelines and when he was working on the General Plan, he saw many <br />projects approved that the Planning Commission either denied or put conditions on that the <br />Council then turned around and approved, sometimes with and without imposed conditions. <br />They went through an extensive exercise in reviewing those guidelines and trying to strengthen <br />them because they believed they were not complied with at the time, and their <br />recommendations died somewhere in the process. He felt the matter is a divisive issue in town, <br />doing initiatives and referendums is not easy or fun, and if people are going to this level of effort <br />and obtain signatures enough to qualify, it should tell the Council something. Policy 5.1 says we <br />should develop a hillside ordinance, so even with these other protections, people decided this is <br />something that should be done. <br />Councilmember Sullivan said he supported the approach on Oak Grove which had the same <br />goal in protecting the ridge lands, but 5,000 people did not like that process. He suggested <br />engaging the Initiative writers to work through issues, have abroad-based community task <br />force, and by placing a City Council sponsored measure on the ballot and creating some <br />competing measure would widen this divide and disenfranchise people more. He supported <br />holding the 30-day study, form a community task force, bring back answers to questions, and if <br />it is satisfactory to the Council and to the community task force, to move forward. <br />Vice Mayor Thorne agreed, believed there were good questions in the staff report and he would <br />need answers to them, but he was not sure about having the process to formulate something to <br />go on the ballot would be divisive. He felt it would provide people with an alternative of the <br />public process used and put that on the ballot, but he would like to see what that looks like <br />before agreeing to it. <br />Councilmember McGovern felt there is definite concern in the community that there are things <br />already contained in the General Plan and Specific Plan and the word "flexibility" keeps coming <br />up, which means a change can be made, and sometimes large changes. What some people are <br />looking for is that some of that flexibility goes away and they want assurances that ordinances <br />passed have a lasting effect on development. She said Measure F was a positive initiative that <br />impacted the western ridgelines, felt the public is happy with it, and she is looking forward to <br />having the Council do something with both the hillside ordinance and grading ordinance. She <br />believes the Council needs to look at policies that affect the ridgelines within the sphere of <br />influence and any lands that could increase the size of the community and is worried that <br />consensus will not be reached through formation of a task force unless there is open- <br />mindedness. <br />Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she agrees there should be open-mindedness and thought <br />that questions put forth in the staff report regarding considerations illustrate how complex the <br />issue is. She supported including everyone who has a stake in the matter, thinks the Pleasanton <br />ridgeline is geographically different than the Southeast hills and should be treated differently, <br />her interest is to ensure everyone is heard, believed this issue was intertwined with Item 21 and <br />suggested waiting for that item to be discussed. <br />Mayor Hosterman believed the Council is fervently supportive of hillside preservation, but how it <br />addresses it in the southeast hills is very different than how the Council has addressed the <br />Pleasanton Ridge. She would like to see an economic analysis as to what the Initiative would <br />do, get a clarification on General Plan policies, more analysis as to options the Council can <br />take, and acity-initiated document, as the initiative is extremely clumsy and confusing. She <br />wants the opportunity to engage the entire community in a discussion about hillside preservation <br />and not be reactionary to a few people who came up with the Initiative's language. She wants <br />City Council Minutes 11 May 20, 2008 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.