01 - Laserfiche WebLink

negotiations, thanked the City Manager and staff, and Mr. Brown for assisting the City and supported the recommendation. Councilmember McGovern said as she looks back on her record of voting, she did not vote for the growth management change because she honestly believed that 350 units a year was adequate for development. She did not vote for the Hacienda rezonings because they rezoned three areas and they only had to use two to meet the RHNA needs. She went through the negotiation process as the person most against moving forward in a fast pace of growth in a community. In an early meeting with Urban Habitat, she indicated to them that she was grieving because she had learned to live with the housing cap because it served as a comfort for many years; it allowed planning for schools and cities to evaluate the real impacts of growth to a community. She liked the comfort of knowing that the community could be kept smaller, that the City could use it as a way to sustain the community, she was and still is concerned that the City would be able to keep its streets, parks, fire, police and facilities in the same condition they are currently. She did not feel the housing cap was discriminatory; there was housing for all levels of the community; however, possibly some poor choices were made along the way for the types of housing built. In any case, she said she realizes now that State law has been passed and it continues to remove local land use planning control from cities. She does believe that in working through this there came to be agreement and real respect of all members of the team, and she supports the agreement. She looks forward being able to move forward with the Housing Element and the Climate Action Plan, and supports formation of the proposed committee. Discussed at the last meeting was the timeline and how to best continue to build public trust in making sure the terms are being implemented. Also discussed is being considerate of why they wanted a housing cap in the first place. She assured everyone that the Council will continue to look at ways to control growth and will make sure the City is kept as nice as it is today. Therefore, she supports all of these efforts and everyone's input who worked on the negotiated settlement which was extremely valuable. She asked that once the City has developed some growth management strategies or other things that the City finds in the research, would it be possible to return to voters in order to ratify and confirm direction. Mr. Fialho said this is possible and this was something discussed in closed and open session. He said the test is to ensure the growth management strategies are consistent with State law and having it validated by the public would be a good final outcome to the implementation of the settlement agreement. Councilmember McGovern noted that growth management strategies have worked in other cities, and they have stood up to the test of legal challenge. Mr. Fialho added that if the City goes down this road, it should ensure there is some built -in flexibility in order not to find itself in a similar situation with the housing cap; where State law had changed after the housing cap had been adopted. Councilmember Cook- Kallio said it's clear that Pleasanton has a community that cares deeply about its quality of life even when opinions differ. She thinks there are ways to control growth consistent with State law, and she thinks good leadership understands that nexus between its citizens and government. She suggested one way to avoid this in the future is to be more pro- active in terms of how the Council cooperates and collaborates with its County and State governments. While it may be difficult having three assembly members in Pleasanton, one could also look positively at this through having three votes for the City. She suggested steps to City Council Minutes Page 6 of 11 August 17, 2010