CCMIN121608 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Sullivan referred to how an assisted living unit is defined and developing guidelines based on impacts to the community. He questioned what these could be and if they would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. City Manager Fialho said staff did this not long ago for the CLC project before the Council on the Staples Ranch property. Based upon their preliminary application staff attempted to calculate density based on impact. Staff also looked at things like water consumption, sewer use, traffic impacts, and impacts on public safety, and calculated the number related to that. Councilmember Sullivan confirmed that staff would look at characteristics that were in the language of both measures in addition to impacts in trying to evaluate whether it is an assisted living unit. Councilmember McGovern said she was having trouble with the fact that PP and QQ are not in conflict. She referred to the Pleasanton Ridge Line Protective and Growth Initiative Section 5.6. which states the word, "conflict period" noting that it states, "The initiative entitled Save Pleasanton Hills and Housing Cap Initiative which appears on the same General Municipal Election ballot as this initiative shall be deemed to be in conflict with this initiative." Ms. Seto said she realizes the language specifically is stated in the QQ measure and as it would carry forward if QQ had received more yes votes, which it did not. Because there was not similar language in PP and it got more votes, it did not invalidate QQ. But then staff looks at the language of both measures to determine whether or not there is any conflict. Therefore, PP controls if there is a conflict. Councilmember McGovern did not believe the second provision in that statement which is the poison pill provision taking away from the conflict, but said it is a way to deal with the conflict. She was having a hard time going along with the fact that PP is not in direct conflict because it is stated clearly. She felt staff is interpreting that the second portion has the poison pill in it, and to her it does not make sense. City Manager Fialho said staff has discussed, but collectively, the Council should be mindful that QQ also re-affirms existing General Plan policies. This is important as PP provided an exemption for 10 units and under, but the exemption is not that one can simply build on the ridgeline. The development project needs to be considered in the context of the General Plan provisions that were re-affirmed by QQ. It is not necessarily conflict--it is an assurance that those projects under 10 units must conform to the General Plan policies that were reflected in QQ. Councilmember McGovern referred to the City Attorney's impartial analysis of both measures, under Housing Unit 1 on Attachment 2, it states, "A measure would reduce the City's discretion to determine what a housing unit is, and the measure's definition could result in units within assisted living and similar facilities counting towards a housing cap." QQ states, "Regarding assisted living facilities, this measure provides the option at the discretion of the City." She felt there is conflict as one measure is removing discretion and one is giving discretion. Ms. Seto felt that the PP petition still directs that "housing unit" be interpreted consistent with the U.S. Census Bureau and State law, and this had the language about assisted living facilities being group quarters. Even though there is the language in Attachment 2, there is still discretion with the Council under PP in terms of using the U.S. Census Bureau's definition, using State law's definitions about housing unit related to independent living to decide whether or not an assisted living facility would count as a housing unit. There might be some perception of loss of City Council Minutes Page 6 of 15 December 16, 2008