CCMIN032012 - Laserfiche WebLink

outweigh the impacts and the Council and community are in agreement, the Council could exempt the project altogether. Councilmember McGovern shared strong concerns with setting such a precedent as it ultimately erodes the entire process. Councilmember Sullivan noted that the current ordinance process commences following approval of a residential project and thought it would be more appropriate to intertwine it with the approval process. He did not necessarily support a priority setting process for developments, particularly if it might push one over into the next RHNA cycle, because the needs of the community can change significantly over time. What constitutes a good fit today may not be the same five years from now. Mr. Fialho cautioned that it does then force a first come, first served scenario and, in an environment where demand exceeds supply, it could be problematic. Councilmember Sullivan said his initial thought is that if infrastructure cannot serve as the basis of growth management relative to RHNA, then RHNA allocations need to be the cap for that cycle. He said he is open to various methods for allocating development throughout the cycle. He felt that commercial and industrial growth should be examined as part of the overall growth management policy. He generally supported the idea of a points system, but thought it should also focus on project features that reduce overall impacts. He stressed the need to step up efforts to involve the school district and other key stakeholders and to be much more proactive in discussing the local effects of these issues with state legislators. He also felt strongly that the growth management reports should be resurrected to allow for a solid evaluation of the current and potential infrastructure impacts. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio said that in speaking to several Assembly members about the development of RHNA numbers and what the expectations are, it seems clear that they have been allocated in a vacuum. It is also clear that the state expects local agencies to alleviate whatever deficiencies exist in light of what they are required to build. She, like others, was sickened by the lack of planning at the state level to accommodate the needs that will arise from these growth mandates. She expressed strong concerns for the quality of life of Pleasanton residents in all areas. She agreed that aggressive action is warranted in dealing with state legislators. Councilmember McGovern reiterated her frustrations with trying to set an effective policy. She suggested it might be helpful to identify constraints during the development review process, which would allow the Council to understand the infrastructure issues that play a role in any development project moving forward. She also said she would like to see if those constraints could be used to set a growth rate based on the likely or anticipated removal of such constraints. 14. PULLED FROM THE AGENDA - Consider the scope, work plan, general schedule and public input process for preparation of an East Pleasanton Specific Plan 15. Consider a resolution accepting the Midyear 2011/12FY Operating Budget Update Finance Director Wagner presented the staff report and reviewed midyear fund balances. The General Fund budget remains balanced, with revenues and expenditures increasing approximately $2.6 million over what was originally anticipated. Revenue increases are attributable primarily to an increase in sales tax revenues, followed by development service fees, hotel/motel tax revenues, business licenses, and recreation fees. Expenditure increases predominantly include retiree medical contributions, consulting fees, water costs, and litigation fees. The 10% Reserve for Economic Uncertainty was increased marginally in accordance with actual revenues. Ms. Wagner reviewed the Water Operation Fund, which has not experienced the anticipated rate of growth but is projected to end the year with $6.6 million in reserves, which is an increase of $300,000 City Council Minutes Page 6 of 7 March 20, 2012