Laserfiche WebLink
something else would be built. She noted that Pleasanton had a voter-approved housing <br />cap and that there was pressure from the State for affordable housing units. She believed <br />that the approval of this project, with 12,500-square-foot homes, was ludicrous and was <br />not what Pleasanton needed at this time. She would like to see more affordable housing <br />so the City’s teachers, police, and firefighters could live in town. She did not believe the <br />amount of time required for a referendum would be a reasonable proposition for <br />community members to affect the construction of this project. She would like the <br />Commissioners to share with the community any discussions they have had with any <br />elected representatives regarding this project. She asked the Commissioners to consider <br />whether this was the type of housing stock that was needed in Pleasanton with the <br />approved cap. If this was not the type of housing needed, she did not believe the project <br />should be approved. <br /> <br />In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding further clarification of the <br />referendum process, Mr. Roush replied that it was pursuant to State law and that it was <br />not imposed by the City; referendums were included under the Elections Code. Once a <br />project has been approved, if the citizens did not think that that was an appropriate <br />project for the City Council to have approved, the citizens have 30 days to collect <br />approximately 3,500 signatures in order to put the matter on the ballot. Following that, it <br />would take approximately four to five months after the referendum petition qualified for <br />the ballot before it would go to the voters. If the referendum were to pass, the project <br />would be set aside. In the case of the Busch property, once the signatures had been <br />collected, the developers decided that they did not want to pursue the project at that time <br />and withdrew the application. If a project were approved and not set aside by the voters <br />thereby being effective, the Development Agreement would vest the entitlements; the <br />option to have the project set aside by a subsequent act of the Council by the voters <br />would be negated by reason of the Development Agreement. <br /> <br />Chairperson Fox disclosed that she had responded to Jennifer Hosterman’s questions <br />regarding the project and had expressed some concerns that the project cannot move <br />along quickly enough; she also discussed some visuals with Ms. Hosterman. <br /> <br />Chairperson Fox indicated that she had also spoken to Mr. Roush the Friday before that <br />conversation because she had understood that she might have spoken to some of the other <br />Commissioners about the project. She had asked Mr. Roush to ensure that the topic did <br />not come up. <br /> <br />Commissioner O’Connor disclosed that he had a conversation with former Mayor Pico <br />when they walked the project approximately one year ago. <br /> <br />Commissioners Pearce and Olsen noted that they had not spoken to any current or former <br />officials about this project. <br /> <br />Commissioner Narum noted that she had a conversation with Councilmember Thorne. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 27, 2007 Page 12 of 28 <br /> <br /> <br />