Laserfiche WebLink
new litigation and voiced concern over this community losing local control and having land use <br />decisions made by a court. Even when writing that piece, he could not have imagined the very <br />serious implication of the court shutting down the issuance of non residential building permits. <br />He voiced concern as a property owner, as a resident, and as someone who truly enjoys the <br />community. He asked that moving forward staff expand its analysis of the issue and that each <br />option include an analysis of the economic and service implications. He said Pleasanton has <br />often been on the cutting edge of things and it is unfortunate to now be on the cutting edge of <br />the implications associated with failure to comply with the State housing law. He wished the <br />Council luck and urged them to be sure they have all pertinent information before moving <br />forward. <br />Scott Raty, Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce, said that today is memorable as the date when <br />business, labor, and environmental groups are in agreement. He thanked the Council for using <br />this hearing to educate the public, said it provided an outstanding overview, and asked if the <br />information might be made available in a PowerPoint presentation. He underscored the <br />economic impacts mentioned by others but said it goes beyond business and potentially effects <br />healthcare and other community groups, as well. He urged the Council to seek as swift a <br />resolution as possible and said he was encouraged to learn that it may be possible to adopt a <br />RHNA exception even with the cap in place. He noted the irony that the very vote the public <br />used to ensure local control is what has now taken that control away. He would like to think that <br />in time, an informed citizenry will recognize that perhaps the objectives of the State, that those <br />of this community are not polar opposites, and that there are healthy decisions to be discovered <br />as the needs of the community continue to evolve. <br />Peter MacDonald said that the 1996 General Plan's build -out projection was reasonable but <br />when the Council put that projection on the ballot, even a near miss became a liability. He said <br />the 2009 General Plan made it apparent that the few remaining developable parcels in <br />Pleasanton could lift that build -out from 29,000 to 31,500 units, but that Measure PP advocates <br />pushed to further restrict any flexibility in the cap by rigidly defining housing units. He said this <br />militant embrace of the cap is what doomed it to failure. He said the consequences of defending <br />the indefensible cap have escalated dramatically, and will continue to escalate until the City <br />addresses the legal requirement to provide for its fair share of the regional housing need. He <br />cautioned that the already overdue Housing Element update would be hopeless with the <br />existing cap in place. He said an appeal would put Pleasanton's formerly good name at an <br />appellate court decision destined to be the definitive rejection of exclusionary local zoning <br />practices. That outcome would besmirch a long tradition of good and socially responsible <br />planning in this City, and he recommended the Council comply with the court order and <br />negotiate a reasonable solution. <br />Mayor Hosterman closed the hearing to public comments and asked the City Manager to speak <br />to the process going forward. <br />City Manager Fialho stated that the City has been engaging in global settlement discussions <br />with the petitioners and from the perspective of trying to identify what would be a possible <br />solution to the issue at hand. He said the City has not tied its hands in terms of options and he <br />characterized it as a parallel track of 3 independent approaches. The next public hearing is set <br />for April 20 at which time staff will provide a comprehensive report, which spells out issues <br />related to the history of the cap, what RHNA means, how it applies to the third and fourth <br />planning periods, and its consequences on the City. By that time, staff also hopes to understand <br />more about what compliance means in the context of the court order or settlement, to share that <br />City Council Minutes <br />Page 16 of 22 April 6, 2010 <br />