CCMIN052102 - Laserfiche WebLink

It was moved by Ms. Dennis, seconded by Mr. Campbell, to accept the certification of the citizens' initiative and place the measure on the ballot in November. She felt there was a question in the community about whether the initiative could be changed, whether the citizens do or do not vote on it. She said nothing is forever, even the initiative process. It doesn't matter whether Council adopts it or it goes on the ballot, a subsequent vote of the people can still change it. She asked staff if anything proposed by the Bernal Task Force violates the City's housing policies regarding numbers of units or development not planned for in the schools, circulation element, or other infrastructure? Mr. Swift said that was difficult to answer. There was a lot of discussion at the Task Force on allocating acreages for uses and densities. Those preliminary ideas went to Council for input and the Task Force then adopted recommendations that do not include specific acreage for any use, just a list of uses. One of the uses is affordable housing. In Pleasanton, affordable housing is defined loosely or concisely depending on where you look. The General Plan loosely defines it. In the inclusionary housing ordinance, it is much more specific. In the Growth Management Ordinance, it basically includes any project in which a significant number (fi.om 15-25%) of those units are affordable to low or moderate income households. There are policies for very low income units on some developments and moderate income units in other developments. Affordable housing could denote a mixed income project so long as some percentage of that (typically no less than 15%) is affordable. That was discussed with Greenbriar Homes and the development agreement included a provision that the City could not sell a portion of the public land for market rate housing without giving Greenbriar the opportunity to take the land back and build on it. On the other hand, if the City built affordable housing, which has been defined as including mixed income housing, then it would not trigger the Greenbriar option. He reviewed the various types of low income housing developments that have been built by the City. A substitute motion was made by Ms. Ayala to adopt the citizens' initiative with the understand that Council would not try to override the initiative by placing another measure on the ballot. Ms. Ayala did not want to confuse the voters. She believed this issue was totally about housing. Mayor Pico questioned the legality of the substitute motion because it restricted Council's right to place something on the ballot at a future time. Mr. Roush understood the motion to be that with regard to the Phase II Specific Plan that would be submitted to the voters, Ms. Ayala was saying it would not include housing as a component. Mayor Pico disagreed. He thought her motion was that if the citizens' initiative were adopted that Council would not place a competing initiative on the ballot in November. Ms. Ayala supported putting two initiatives on the ballot in November, the citizens' initiative without housing and another with housing. Pleasanton City Council 14 05/21/02 Minutes