01 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

project on-going was in Livermore and it was a pipeline project from there to Pleasanton, as well as some activities with DSRSD the City is looking at regionally to provide a different type of water quality delivery to the Tri-Valley area. He noted that the export pipeline meets the City's general plan build-out condition. Councilmember McGovern referred to the memorandum from staff and felt staff did a good job in working with the verbiage. Councilmember Sullivan said there were only some of the goals and policies from the Water Element in the document but not all and he confirmed with Ms. Stern that this was a brief summary to some of the subregional water element policies, but the majority of them were in the Water Element. He suggested many more of them should be reflected in the plan. Mayor Hosterman opened the public hearing. David Stark, addressed the City Council, thanked Council and staff for the Commissioner Recognition program, encouraged continuation of this, thanked the Council for his re- appointment, thanked the Council for acknowledging Pleasanton's role in regional issues, and spoke to the housing issues in the regional element. He referred to page 14-7, Housing, third paragraph, and said the analysis speaks to how local land use decisions have impacted the regional issues; specifically the lack of affordable housing which impact circulation problems. He felt the City may be planning for more problems, said the City has supported the ABAG Focus program, he discussed the various strategies, and voiced concerns with existing growth controls and ability to implement the same visions the City is agreeing to in the subregional element. Mr. Stark felt the housing cap would make achieving some of the housing supply goals very difficult. He said in an earlier version of the plan was program 1.7 under Goal 1, it was stated as "Review, and if appropriate, revise General Plan land use designations based on the inventory of available land for uses within a subregion." This program was removed from the latest reiteration, the Planning Commission had some concerns over its removal and staff has mentioned why it was removed, but he asked the council consider putting it back in to show the City's commitment to doing what it takes to be a regional team player, specifically as it relates to land use decisions and the supply of housing. The housing goals are laudable, but they primarily speak to accessing existing housing and unfortunately there is not a specific goal in the current version that speaks to increasing the supply of housing. To commit to regional planning, he felt we need to commit to responsible, local land use planning that fits into the regional goals, as well, and this element needs to strongly represent this. Mayor Hosterman noted on page 14-5 in the final draft version, there are strategies to achieve goals and these are not mandates. Mr. Stark argued that he could not find in the final draft version a commitment by the City to deal with land use issues as they relate to increasing the supply of housing. He understands that the strategies do not tie the City's hands to anything, but there is a difference between being a team player out in the field versus one who sits on the bench and by not including programs such as 1.7, he felt the City was still "on the bench". Councilmember Sullivan questioned if Mr. Stark meant increasing housing supplies beyond the housing cap, and Mr. Stark said the City needs to consider the constraints facing the community now, but other more arbitrary land use restrictions may need to be revisited and he recommended leaving in program 1.7 in the plan. City Council Minutes 15 June 19, 2007