Laserfiche WebLink
measurable outcomes that they believe are very much tied to sustaining Pleasanton as the <br />premier place in which to live and do business. <br />Mayor Hosterman closed public comment. <br />Councilmember McGovern supports the City Attorney preparing an impartial analysis as <br />needed, said this was a citizen initiative and she felt the Council should go along with either Mr. <br />Roberts' or Ms. Ayala's suggested language, to include the word, "citizen". <br />Councilmember Sullivan agreed with the statements of Councilmember McGovern, said he <br />thinks it is going to be very important that the community easily be able to differentiate between <br />the two initiatives. He also believes that the ballot arguments in favor of the citizen's initiative be <br />written by the proponents. <br />Vice Mayor Thorne said he continues to believe the objective of the Council is to provide the <br />community with a comprehensive hillside protection ordinance and this vision is shared by a <br />vast majority of people. He does not think it serves any good to take cheap shots at the Council <br />from those with opposing views. He hoped everybody could debate the issue in a civil manner <br />and come up with an answer that is good for the entire community. He pledged not to take any <br />cheap shots. <br />Regarding the specific questions, he would have chosen a different ballot wording but agrees <br />those who gathered the signatures need to be involved in the writing of the question. He would <br />have opted for another question, but would go along with what is proposed, he supports the <br />impartial analysis, which will be important to both Initiatives. <br />Councilmember McGovern said she asked staff about what is affecting ridge views in hillsides <br />currently, and she read from the Chamber of Commerce's letter, "PUD's must be consistent with <br />the hillside policies of the General Plan. In Chapter 18.68 of the Code PUD District, including <br />specific considerations and requirement for hill area development. Furthermore, most hill area <br />development is required to prepare EIR's which provide an in-depth analysis of the impact and <br />mitigation required. So although we don't have a comprehensive hillside ridgeline protection <br />ordinance in place, we have the use of PUD and CEQA processes to protect hill areas, <br />properties, and to address issues relating to hill area development based on our existing <br />General Plan policies and programs." To her, what is being said is not currently correct, <br />because we already have the things in place and they do not go away, and this means we do <br />not have to agree on 10 units or less on hillsides. <br />Councilmember Cook-Kallio agrees there should be a impartial analysis, appreciated <br />Councilmember Thorne's comments about divisiveness, was concerned people get their <br />information from editorials that do not show the entire picture. She looks at the potential <br />measure as being something that is clarifying and for this reason she was concerned about <br />Option 1 with the modification because it is divisive, it infers that it is all citizens; it is misleading <br />and does not provide enough description. She would prefer Option 5, could live with Option 4, <br />and does not like Option 1 because of it not being descriptive. <br />Mayor Hosterman said she agrees with Councilmember Cook-Kallio, both should be more <br />descriptive than one line and would support the direction of going with either Option 4 or 5. She <br />feels the same way about a potential Council-sponsored measure on the next agenda item. <br />Councilmember Sullivan said he was supportive of the language to include "citizens' because <br />the citizens made this happen. His legal concern is that because the actual wording of the <br />City Council Minutes 6 July 15, 2008 <br />