CCMIN040610 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Sullivan asked him to clarify the timeline on the judge's order. Mr. Brown said the court has allowed the City 120 days from the date the writ of mandate is signed, which will likely be from April 5` Councilmember McGovern asked that, just as the housing cap was approved by the voters, would an amendment also require a vote of the public. Mr. Brown said he did not believe so given that the action would be in compliance with court order. The same action prior to the court ruling would have required a vote. Councilmember McGovern said she would like the public to understand there are time constraints associated with what the City would like to do in terms of compliance. She said there has been question surrounding the validity of Measure PP, which specified what constitutes a housing unit, given that it is a part of Policy 24. Mr. Brown said the court's ruling does not distinguish but does invalidate the cap in its entirety and orders the City to eliminate Policy 24 and its programs in entirety. He said he does not believe the intent of the order is to sweep away ridgeline protection and that it would be a reasonable and good faith reading of the order to say that only those provisions of recent measures that recreate the cap are affected by the ruling. Having said that, he stressed that the issue is not clear and may be subject to further dispute. Councilmember McGovern noted that Measure PP clearly stipulates that if any portion of its content is struck down, the rest remains in place. Mr. Brown reiterated that he did not believe the court ever intended to address those additional protections and that it would be extreme to read the ruling otherwise. Mayor Hosterman opened the hearing for public comments. Pat Murray said it is important to recall why the City voted to ban housing over a specified number of units per year. She said it was not driven by a desire to prevent people from living here but rather an attempt to control what many viewed as runaway development that served only to line the pockets of developers. She said that as a valley city, Pleasanton has been impacted by cut through traffic and increased demand on its freeway systems, resulting in unhealthy air quality in the valley. She strongly urged the Council to protect the citizens' rights to pass ordinances that they deem necessary. Michael O'Callaghan said he opposed continued litigation, which would kill an already troubled commercial business community. He said the Council signed on to take care of its citizens and must now resolve the situation. He said that rather than more elections and lawsuits, the City must channel its money to a better use. The Council is in a difficult position but must now find some other way to comply with the wishes of its citizenry. Becky Dennis introduced herself as a member of Citizens for a Caring Community, although conceded they had not met to discuss her comments. She asked the Council to remember that Pleasanton has many long -time residents who support the City's vision for affordable workforce, senior, and disabled housing and that while the views of the Council and housing advocates have diverged in terms of social justice, she hopes the Council will proceed down the path of negotiation. She asked them to do so in order to allow the City's affordable housing advocates a role in developing a solution that represents the interests of the entire community, a control that would not be afforded by narrowly implementing the court order. She concurred with Councilmember Sullivan that one can tell the character of a community by how the concerns of City Council Minutes Page 13 of 22 April 6, 2010