CCMIN052008 - Laserfiche WebLink

subdivide legal parcels as of January provided that subdivision is for 10 or fewer units. He presented a letter to the Council, asked for the Council not to place the Initiative on the ballot and asked study be done. Lee Fulton said one thing said over and over is that Oak Grove is the result of exhaustive negotiations with communities. Vintage Hills and Gray Eagle were never included in any negotiations, but with three owners of Kottinger Ranch Homeowner Association and the developer. He personally requested to be included in negotiations early on, without success. He urged the Council not to make the illogical conclusion that since 5,000 voters signed the Initiative, the rest of the voters must not be for it. John Chapman, Greenbelt Alliance, said they had some debate on the issue, do not feel supportive of the Initiative, they are supportive of the fact more protection is needed for hillsides and believes the process should be public and involve City staff and experts. He believes the Initiative is vague and simplistic and clumsy, said the answer is to do it as a City process to come up with a good Initiative that is tight or better than the one proposed. Also, they are very uncomfortable with housing caps, does not believe in planning by housing caps particularly when it involves atransit-oriented development which is important for climate change and reducing congestion and believes that if the City comes up with a good Initiative, their organization would support it. Marty Inderbitren supported the Council studying the matter for 30 days and asking staff to prepare a report according to the Elections Code, believes it is not the intended consequences of the proposed initiative that anyone is concerned about, but the unintended consequences. He said staff did an excellent job outlining many policies and goals in the General Plan that speak to hillside protection, and while no specific ordinance has come forvvard, the Council has a process of PUD ordinances that is specific to each property. In each case, the Council has reviewed individual plans and those properties are well-protected and asked for the process not to be abandoned. Mayor Hosterman closed public comment. Councilmember McGovern supported the 30-day study and for directing staff to prepare a report on the effects of the Initiative. She said when the Initiative is put on the ballot, she confirmed the City Attorney could provide an impartial analysis of the Initiative which could include information regarding fiscal impacts within the 500 word limitation. She questioned and confirmed that if he could provide this when information is brought back under Item C so the Council could review it. She confirmed with the majority of the Council that there was not support for placing the Initiative on the ballot without additional information, and there was support for Item C; to direct staff to make a report on the effects of the Initiative measure, and she confirmed with the City Manager that there was adequate direction as to what the report should entail. Councilmember Cook-Kallio believed there was also a third choice, a competing Initiative or ordinance on the ballot that is more deliberative. She is frustrated by this being characterized as divisive, did not believe anyone was being malicious, she respects the activism but was bothered by the lack of deliberation when doing an Initiative and it looked as if it was cut and pasted from the Pleasanton Ridgeline Initiative, and she felt this was a bad way of making laws. She would like analysis on how this may affect Staples Ranch or Hacienda or affordable housing. She also would like to see all properties affected by the Initiative, the fiscal impact of this, she would like to see an ordinance crafted by the first part of August, but in the absence of this, she would like an Initiative on the ballot that includes all stakeholders. City Council Minutes 14 May 20, 2008