Laserfiche WebLink
75 <br /> <br />of California, but Pleasanton opted not to pursue the appeal. With <br />respect to Livermore's case, the Supreme Court decided that the <br />ordinance was appropriate for an initiative, but did not <br />specifically decide on whether or not the ordinance itself had an <br />adverse impact on regional housing needs, and the Court referred <br />the matter to the Superior Court for decision. He indicated that <br />he was not sure of the final outcome of the Livermore case but that <br />because Pleasanton did not appeal the Superior Court's decision <br />invalidating the ordinance, the ordinanceis of no force or effect <br />at this time. <br /> <br /> Ms. Purnell indicated that it was her understanding that the <br />Supreme Court upheld the ordinance in Livermore's case. She <br />continued that Pleasanton should also have a moratorium like <br />Livermore since both cities draw from the same water source. She <br />added that since this Initiative was passed by the voters, and the <br />voters have not repealed it, Pleasanton should adopt it as an <br />ordinance. She stated that it is not fair that Pleasanton <br />residents will be rationing water while the City allows new <br />buildings to be constructed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer commented that it was his understanding that since <br />the City Council decided not to appeal the decision, the City gave <br />up its legal rights on the Initiative. He asked the Councilmembers <br />for their opinion on the matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver indicated that he could understand the residents' <br />concern since the City will soon be implementing a 50% water <br />conservation program. He proposed that staff prepare a report on <br />the SAVE initiative, as well as on a Council initiated ordinance, <br />concerning a moratorium on residential construction, and hold a <br />public hearing on the matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler stated that he had no objection to Mr. Tarver's <br />proposal and that it would be appropriate to look at the impact of <br />the current water situation on the City's building policies. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr commented that this issue could be addressed when <br />Council discusses the concepts and implementation of water <br />conservation under Item 12c. <br /> <br />Affordable Housinq Units on Stanley Boulevard <br /> <br /> Mr. Charles Doda, 7983 Applewood Court, stated that he read <br />that granny flats would be constructed in Pleasanton and inquired <br />if these are considered affordable housing units. He also <br />requested for further information on the matter. <br /> <br /> - 5 - <br /> 3-19-91 <br /> <br /> <br />