CCMIN071508 - Laserfiche WebLink

of the property owners then that agreement would be able to go into effect because it would pre- date the initiative and vest those entitlements. Councilmember McGovern said if this is approved, does this give additional rights to Oak Grove to say through litigation that they have vested rights and anything that comes from this should not have anything to do with them. City Attorney Roush said it will not give Oak Grove any more or less vested entitlements than it has today. Councilmember McGovern said she had problems with the language and wants to make sure as many hillsides are protected as possible. She also wondered if a moratorium in the southeast hills could be a part of the initiative and whether or not the Council would be willing to take whatever is accomplished to a vote of the people. Whatever comes out of the collaborative process, she said if not ratified by the voters, it can be changed by a majority of the Council. Mayor Hosterman said the only problem with that is that if this is done, nothing will be in concrete until 2010. Councilmember McGovern said she believes the Council owes the public firm knowledge that it cannot be changed by a majority of the Council. She said Councils come and go and if not taken to a vote of the people, it can be changed. To her, it is a lot of work to do to not have it ratified by the voters. Mayor Hosterman said she was not sure if she was willing to contemplate having this grow to a two-year process. Councilmember McGovern said if we want all voters to have a voice, they should be allowed to vote. The initiative on the ballot gives them that right, and to her, she cannot support putting anything on the ballot. Councilmember Sullivan said what is disturbing to him is that in the last two years there have been two examples of citizens exercising their right to petition their government. The referendum with the Oak Grove project and the citizens who have come up with the initiative. The developer sued with the first and got the referendum overturned and it is stuck in the appeal courts, and the second, the Council is taking action to undermine and over-turn the other citizen's actions. He questioned what message that sends to the community, and he thinks this is a mistake. Regarding the language in the initiative, this is a status quo type of measure, it creates a plan with no outcome, and with the intent to undermine and defeat the citizen's initiative. This shows a lack of leadership on the Council and it is a political trick. This is also a "trust us" measure in comparison to the citizen's initiative which is clear. He believes that based on the last meeting when Council received the staff report, answers to questions, and the developer's intent, it is clear what the initiative will do. Councilmember Sullivan also said there is talk about people writing the initiative in the middle of the night around a kitchen table, but those who wrote the language are former members of the Council and planning commissioners that have more experience combined than this entire sitting Council. He said he has a problem with "collaborative and public process". He said one developer showed up and suggested putting a competing initiative on the ballot that re-affirms the existing general plan policies and the Council did what the one developer wanted done; it disregarded the public testimony and answers from staff on the questions. Councilmembers read prepared speeches as to their position, and they went in the one developer's direction. The fact that one developer showed up given the potential impact on their future plans is a huge statement, as well. He voiced a concern with the schedule, said Greenbriar Homes has been ready for awhile with their Lund Ranch project for 150 houses in the hills, and they could submit this at any time City Council Minutes 13 July 15, 2008