Council plans special meeting Thursday on impact of Ayala initiative Around Town, posted by Editor, Pleasanton Weekly Online, on Jun 21, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Pleasanton City Council members, after spending part of an opening hour at their June 17 meeting trying to find a suitable time to hold a public discussion on a controversial hillside initiative, agreed by telephone yesterday to hold that special meeting at 6:30 p.m. Thursday, June 26.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Saturday, June 21, 2008, 8:35 AM
Posted by Ron, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Jun 22, 2008 at 7:45 am
I have respect for Matt Sullivan's act of conscious.
Matt has put his reelection at risk because he could no longer stay with the council majority. It would have served him better to not separate from the current majority but his conscious got the best of him.
Posted by Free Speech Rules!, a resident of the Castlewood neighborhood, on Jun 22, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Well Done, Matt! Your pressure to "do the right thing for the right reason" won out in the end.
Kudos to the Weekly and Jeb Bing - if Jeb had not placed the online stories and allowed a healthy online free speech exchange- the Council would not have seen how the community was feeling about their actions over the past months on this issue.
Posted by stalling, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 22, 2008 at 8:57 pm
There would have been no need for the special meeting if there had been no continuance. The right thing would have been to hear the agenda item. If Mr.Sullivan had gotten his way this would have been continued until July 15th. Mr. Sullivan caused the upheaval to begin with.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 22, 2008 at 9:44 pm
An earlier version of this story mentioned that City Manager Fialho "rushed" back from his family vacation to call all the Councilmembers and arrange a new date for this special meeting. I'm not sure why that part got removed from this story, but if it is true all the kudos should go to Nelson Fialho, not the Councilmembers. Kudos, Mr. Fialho!
Posted by Gwen, a resident of the Kottinger Ranch neighborhood, on Jun 23, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Why does the Weekly keep calling this the "Ayala Initiative"? It is called the "Save Pleasanton Hills and Housing Cap Initiative". While Kay Ayala did work hard on collecting signatures and exhibiting her leadership skills, there are others who are proponents of the Initiative, many signature collectors, and over 5,000 people who signed the initiative. She also did not write the initiative by herself. There were many people who were consulted on it.
We have had initiatives written, or lead by leaders in the community and the Weekly did not name the initiative after them. Jerry Thorne was a proponent on a sports park initiative but that initiative was never called "The Thorne Initiative". Steve Brozosky and Brian Ark were proponents of an initiative to keep housing off the Bernal Park and that initiative was not called "The Brozosky Initiative" or "The Arkin Initiative".
What is the Weekly trying to accomplish by calling this the Ayala Initiative?
Posted by Me, a resident of another community, on Jun 25, 2008 at 11:57 am
So I'm expecting overwhelming support for J. McCain for the election from this group. Sounds like they are not for Change; they want to maintain the status quo. They couldn't possibly be for B. Obama because he's all about Change.
Posted by Mike, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Stacey, I agree. This affordable housing lawsuit give more reason why we need the initiative. The staff report for this item tomorrow indicates that building more homes in the hills is financially better than smaller, affordable homes which fits right into the argument of this lawsuit. We need to stop the city from approving more and more mansions so that we can build more affordable homes. Each mansion we build in the hills means one less smaller home we can build. If we continue what we are doing today, we will get to our housing cap with large mansions and then we might be forced to abandon the housing cap to build affordable homes.
Perhaps the council will reconsider their last vote and actually adopt the initiative to prove that the city is doing what it can to ensure we build smaller, affordable homes.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2008 at 3:59 pm
The lawsuit has the potential to completely wipe away the housing cap, making the housing unit thing in the initiative completely useless. Then our artificially inflated house values will start to drop.
Posted by Nancy, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Mike, are you kidding? No homes, affordable or otherwise, will be built if the initiative passes. The council wisely does not count assisted living facilities and secondary units towards the housing cap and now that would be in question. The general plan allocates homes and the housing cap is alive and well in this city as we approach buildout. If we took all the remaining units and built them as high density units, the people of Pleasanton would be unhappy and call us Dublin!