Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Swift said yes. In regards to the State laws, the State does not have an effective way to <br /> enforce the requirements as to what cities do within their own city limits with respect to providing <br /> housing to meet those state mandated requirements. If the City's housing element is not approved <br /> by the State, that element is not technically an approved part of the City's General Plan. The City <br /> has to have an internally consistent complete General Plan in order to take a number of actions. <br /> Primarily are those that require a finding that a proposed action is consistent with the General Plan. <br /> If a General Plan is not operational then it is not possible legally to find the action Council is about <br /> to take is consistent with the General Plan. Some of the actions that are most common are approval <br /> of all new projects, tentative maps, etc. It also includes the City approving its own Capital <br /> Improvement Program, where the projects must conform to the General Plan. He reiterated again <br /> the State does not have an effective way of enforcing what cities do if the State does not approve a <br /> housing element. He did mention there is always the potential for a lawsuit if cities do not have an <br /> approved housing element. <br /> Ms. Dennis mentioned the policies that are linked to the jobs/housing ratio. She asked if <br /> there are other policies that are also linked together. <br /> Mr. Swift said other policies are the parks and recreation policy,the policy to maintain the <br /> mixed land use and the policy to maintain 15% of the housing stock for lower income housing. <br /> These policies would be hard to enforce under the new land use designations if the CAPP passes. <br /> Ms. Dennis asked if the growth related impacts could be successfully mitigated without the <br /> initiative. <br /> Mr. Swift said staff believes the existing General Plan and the environmental impact report <br /> that was prepared for it identifies mitigation measures for all the local impacts as opposed to <br /> regional impacts. The Council did make findings of overriding significance with respect to <br /> numerous regional impacts of growth in Pleasanton,when the General Plan was adopted in 1996. <br /> However, it was anticipated that through the self-correcting policies that are incorporated <br /> throughout the General Plan, localized potential impacts from growth in Pleasanton would be <br /> mitigated. An example is that no new development would be approved unless mitigation measures <br /> are identified to insure that level of service D or better are maintained at most intersections <br /> throughout the City. <br /> Mayor Tarver understood if the initiative passes the City would not be able to maintain its <br /> General Plan park area ratio. <br /> Mr. Swift said the General Plan anticipates 8 acres per 1000 residents. The city is at <br /> approximately 5 acres per 1000 residents. The additional development that will occur between now <br /> and the 26,500 units under the initiative would basically add population and pay a fee based on 5 <br /> acres per 1000 residents. But there is no designated park land for the properties that will develop. <br /> The second element is the total amount of park land per 1000 population at buildout. The City <br /> could end up with fewer acres per 1000 residents than what is currently identified in the General <br /> Plan. <br /> Pleasanton City Council 8 08/23/99 <br /> Minutes <br />