CCMIN071508 - Laserfiche WebLink

City Attorney Roush expressed concern whether the motion was completely within the scope of the particular item before the Council tonight. If there is support for the motion, he suggested it be brought back in August or September to be properly noticed. Councilmember McGovern thought this could be part of the initiative that went to the voters and she asked if this could be said in the initiative. City Attorney Roush said the vote of the people is more within the scope of what this item is about. Councilmember Sullivan said he would change his motion according to the City Attorney's suggestion. Mayor Hosterman suggested waiting to see how the vote plays out on November 4'". If the Council-sponsored initiative is favored by the voters, at that time, Council can ask staff to return with an opportunity to discuss a moratorium on building in the hillside pending ordinance language. Councilmember Sullivan said he wants to do it now, said people will start to get their projects approved and he will amend his motion to say that the moratorium process will return to Council. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she would not be in favor of this as the Council's agendas are full. Councilmember McGovern questioned if the moratorium language could be put in the initiative itself so that if the initiative passes, the moratorium takes place, and City Attorney Roush said this was legal. Motion: It was m/s by Sullivan/McGovern that if the Council-sponsored initiative prevails and the citizen's initiative is defeated, to bring back for Council's consideration the development of a hillside development moratorium until the outcome of the measure is known. Substitute Motion: It was m/s by Sullivan/McGovern that within the initiative itself it would be clearly stated that a moratorium on development within the hillsides of Pleasanton would occur if the initiative passes, and that whatever came out of the collaborative process may be ratified by the voters of Pleasanton. Motion failed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers McGovern, Sullivan Noes: Councilmembers Cook-Kallio, Thorne, Mayor Hosterman Absent: None Motion: It was m/s by Sullivan/McGovern that he and Councilmember McGovern write the rebuttal to the argument against the argument for. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Cook-Kallio, McGovern, Sullivan, Thorne, Mayor Hosterman Noes: None Absent: None City Attorney Roush said a motion is needed for the overall resolution that would call for the City Attorney's impartial analysis, deadlines for the arguments, direct and rebuttal and all other procedural aspects as set forth in the resolution. Motion: It was m/s by Sullivanlfhorne to adopt Resolution No. 08-228 authorizing the placement on the November 4, 2008 General Election the City Council sponsored Pleasanton Ridgeline Protection and Growth Control Initiative, Authorizing Direct and Rebuttal Arguments concerning the Initiative Measure and setting submission deadlines, directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis, making determinations regarding Council-written Arguments and Requesting the Alameda County Registrar's Office to consolidate this Election with the November 4, 2008 General Election. Motion passed by the following vote: City Council Minutes 16 July 15, 2008