01 (1) - Laserfiche WebLink

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS Motion: It was m/s by Sullivan//Thorne to place an emergency item on the agenda regarding discussion and action concerning June 3, 2008 ballot Propositions 98 & 99. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Cook-Kallio, McGovern, Sullivan, Thorne, Mayor Hosterman Noes: None Absent: None City Attorney Roush said Prop 98 and 99 are State propositions on the June 3 ballot and both are Constitutional Amendments. Prop 98 has a number of different provisions; part of them deal with eminent domain and it changes the procedures used for eminent domain, such that it would prohibit the use of eminent domain for the government to condemn private property and turn that property over to a private developer for economic benefit. It also changes some of the burdens of proof and procedural aspects of eminent domain. It will make it more expensive for public agencies to use it even if the purpose is for roads and public facilities. In addition, Prop 98 also eliminates rent control provisions throughout the State. In Pleasanton, such agreements are in place with the mobile home park owners, and the effect would be as residents leave the parks, the owners would be able to charge fair market value, making it difficult for people to sell their units as well as move into units. Prop 98 also has provisions which will cause an argument to be made that if a Council takes action that has the effect of transferring benefit from one property owner to another, the Proposition will either make it illegal to do that or will cause the public agency to have to pay for the exercise of that power. There are a number of questionable provisions that will make it more expensive for public agencies to do business, there will be considerable litigation regarding its provisions, and the League of California Cities has come out in opposition to it. Mr. Roush said Prop 90 was similar and was on the ballot in November of 2006. It had the eminent domain provisions but not the rent control provisions, and this was narrowly defeated 52-48. As an alternative to Prop 98, Prop 99 has been largely sponsored by the League's political arm and it attempts to get at some of the feelings many people have about the improper use of eminent domain by taking a private property and turning it over to a developer. If both Propositions pass, there will be the poison pill provision in Prop 99 to cause Prop 98 not go into effect. Mayor Hosterman questioned who the proponents were in Prop 98, and Mr. Roush said major funders include apartment associations, mobile home park owners associations and individuals within that group. Councilmember Sullivan confirmed with Mr. Roush that Prop 98 has some limits and limitations on local government decision-making on land use such that, if the City restricted an individual from building up to a certain number of units, it may have to pay for that economic difference that the owner could have made on those restricted units. Mayor Hosterman opened the item to public comment and confirmed there were no public speakers. Councilmember Sullivan supported the passage of a resolution by the Council citing the loss of rental control, land use decisions and values, and he confirmed with the City Manager that the League has circulated a resolution to the cities, which could be signed. City Council Minutes 4 May 20, 2008