CCMIN082399 - Laserfiche WebLink

Phil Serna, PO Box 5160, San Ramon, with the Home Builder's Association thanked staff for an excellent report. lie said citizens elect representatives to make tough decisions. The thresholds for the CAPP make it the most stringent no-growth initiative in the history of California. He believed it mocked direct democracy and allowed no flexibility in the planning process. He asked how many times the City has approved a project without any changes? He thought the planning process provided creative solutions to maximize public facilities to best serve the City of Pleasanton. Under CAPP, any proposed PUD (ten units or greater)would have to go to the vote of the public. He respectfully requested that Council acknowledges its opposition to the proposed Initiative and makes decisions they were elected to make. He recited a court case Monterans for Affordable Housing vs. City of Monterey, Superior Court No. 91360, August 17, 1994, where the court held that a city could not impose the cost of land use elections on private properties. He asked Council to consider the fiscal consequences before committing a position on CAPP. Stan Erickson, 3684 Chi Hingham Court, clarified that the Initiative is an opportunity for voters to have an automatic say in development. He felt the CAPP Initiative would not stop development in the City, but allows for better quality development. He also felt affordable housing would not be jeopardized. He said people would vote for projects that include affordable housing. He said there is some question that CAPP will not have any affect on regional issues, but the proponents feel the reasons are regional. He said CAPP is asking for the developers to listen to the voters in order to give voters what they want. Ms. Ayala asked in terms of units, what does "significant" mean and if the Initiative proponents had considered the burden of the cost for an election. Mr. Erickson said "significant" means hundreds of homes. But the Initiative was not written to include anything under 100 homes to be taken into account. CAPP was designed to give the voters a review of development projects. It was necessary to lower the number to 10 in order to avoid a parcelization. For example, if someone wanted to build a 200-unit development,he could build 50 units on four separate parcels. In regards to the cost of an election, he said the average profit on a house is greater than the cost of an election. Ms. Michelotti asked why the Vineyard Corridor was designated as one of the properties in the Initiative to revert to agricultural. Mr. Erickson said the Initiative states that a Specific Plan can be voted on which will carry all components past the voting threshold. Therefore, the Specific Plan for Vineyard Corridor, if opposed by the voters,eliminates CAPP's effect. Ms. Michelotti understood the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan would have to be voted on prior to the passage of the Initiative in order to remain in effect. Otherwise if CAPP passes the Specific Plan would all be undone. Pleasanton City Council 15 08/23/99 Minutes