CCMIN071508 - Laserfiche WebLink

implemented and can safeguard our opportunities to continue to provide balance in future development for the people of Pleasanton. Councilmember Cook-Kallio referred to the staff report, said if the correct term for the item is Council-sponsored as a measure, it should be changed to "measure." She said she did not like in Option 1 the term "management" because it implies things are simply being moved around. She preferred a term like, "control." She does want to control growth. City Attorney Roush said the term "initiative' is fine, but if the Council wants to use the term "measure" it could also. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she still wanted to change the term from "management" to "control." She also said she likes Option 4, but instead of saying, "it would preserve all scenic hillsides', she would delete "all" or put the term under the City of Pleasanton's control because there are hillsides that we view that we have no control over. She is more concerned that we are specific with our language. In addition, on page 1 of 3 of the initiative, under D, she would like changed, "all types of housing units are counted towards the voter-aaaroved maximum build-out of 29,000 housing units". She referred to page 2 of 3, E, 3rtl and 4`" line, "apartments and mobile homes have counted against the housing cap" and the correct term should be "counted toward the housing cap." Also, she envisioned something like Measure F which was a good thing. It was easy to understand, the definitions were clear, and there was consensus in terms of what that meant. The issue of the citizen's initiative is that we are guaranteed there will be issues because the terminology is not clear and the proponents could have added explanations as part of that explanation and chose not to. She views this measure as something that clarifies the protection, the preservation and that we want to control growth. The one thing not said much is that it is important for the environmental protection; whether it is a negative declaration or a full EIR. She believes that the citizen's right to do this is protected, it is constitutional, but so are the actions of a governmental body. She is convinced that if this was really about protecting the hills, that all of us would make this clear, avoid any litigation, ensure every citizen is heard. She is interested in protecting hills, is offended by the term, "developer-friendly measure or initiative", but thinks that the validated signatures does not represent the entire community. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said if the Council-sponsored measure passes, then everyone will get what they want. Proponents will be able to participate in whatever process is set up and she wants to see all stakeholders speak their peace. The process should be inclusive and an environmental process completed. Councilmember McGovern questioned when projects become vested. Ms. Seto said there are different ways. There are some situations where projects can have a vesting tentative map, others can be vested because they have a development agreement in place, and some that did not rise to the level of a large subdivision because there was no vesting tentative map or development agreement, if they have spent significant sums in reliance on a building permit, then they would be considered vested. Councilmember McGovern questioned if the Oak Grove project, the Lund Ranch II project or the Spotorno project is seen as vested at this time. City Attorney Roush said technically no, although there may be an issue with respect to the Oak Grove project. There is a development agreement that was approved by the Council. That agreement is attached to the PUD development plan ordinance that was subject to a referendum petition, which was set aside by a court decision, that decision is under appeal, so until the litigation is resolved, it is difficult to say whether or not the development agreement is in place or not. If the litigation is resolved in favor City Council Minutes 12 July 15, 2008