CCMIN030999 - Laserfiche WebLink

they want and get this resolved as quickly as possible. He said if the proponents want this initiative on the ballot in November they need to rework the language based on what the City Attorney has stated. It was moved by Ms. Ayala, seconded by Ms. Michelotti, to refer this initiative to staff for reports on fiscal impacts, General Plan consistency, and other matters. (No vote was ever taken on this motion.) In particular, Ms. Dennis said she would like information on whether the conditions have changed since the last fiscal analysis for the General Plan was done and then compare the outcome of that fiscal analysis to the impacts of the initiative; a report from the School District to see if the initiative would have any impacts on the school issues; a report on the impacts regarding the sewer expansion project and whether any other agencies are interested in participating. Mr. Pico said the type of action Councilmember Dennis is suggesting is premature until the initiative qualifies for the ballot. He said that type of action could be perceived as meddling. He felt a better time for analysis is after the signatures are gathered and the initiative qualifies, unless it is the City Council's intent to sponsor the initiative. He voiced concem over adding additional work to staffs already overloaded workload. He said Council does not know if the initiative is going to be revised, if the initiative will be successful, or if the proponents are going to gather signatures. He did not see any problem with having this in the year 2000. Ms. Michelotti had several questions and felt thirty days was not enough time to gather information and do an analysis. She did not want to rush the process. She asked if there were provisions for affordable housing in the initiative? She did not want affordable housing developments going to the vote of the people. She also indicated the petitions being circulated in other cities are different. Mr. Roush said the initiative does not expressly exempt from the vote of the people an affordable housing project. Ms. Michelotti did not understand how the initiative would impact vested development. Would those developments have to go to the vote of the people? Mr. Roush said the intent is that if someone has a vested fight at the time the initiative was adopted they would have certain rights. Submitting a vesting tentative map application is an administrative decision and is not subject to the vote of the people. A modification of a PUD, for example, is a legislative issue and would have to go to the vote of the people. Ms. Michelotti had a concern on how this initiative would impact the Vineyard Corridor. She said considerable work has been done to create a plan and the initiative is stating that those areas remain agriculture. Pleasanton City Council 9 03/09/99 Special Meeting - Minutes