CCMIN070296 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Mohr felt it was unfortunate there is not better bus service, because some people don't want buses on their street. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers - Dennis, Michelotti, Mohr, Pico, and Mayor Tarver NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Annual Housing Growth Rate Ms. Mohr asked if this range included the San Francisco Water Department project. Mr. Rasmussen indicated it did. It was moved by Ms. Miehelotti, seconded by Ms. Denn[% to modify the Planning Commition recommendation, regarding Program 14.1 on page II-20, and Program 12.1 on page lV-24, to read as follows: "Use the City's Growth Management Program to limit residential growth to between 0 and 650 units per year, and reserve an additional 100 units per year for projects which include 25 percent or more lower-income housing units; provided, however, the midpoint should guide the City Councll's derision in determining the nnmber of new growth management allocations to approve annually. The annual alloeatlon should be based on a periodic assessment of housing need, employment growth, the availability of infrastructure, and the City's ability to provide public services." Mr. Tarvet indicated there was no way he could support this motion in view of the responses to his survey. Seventy-eight percent of the responding community wanted no more than 350 units per year and they don't want to leave it to Council's discretion. They also don't want to move the urban limit line and they want to limit the number of people who ultimately live in Pleasanton. Those three basic issues are consistent. He felt the whole growth management program should be gutted and there should be 350 units per year period. If San Francisco is to be excluded, he could talk about that because of the pending negotiations. Ms. Michelotti felt that with 0 to 650 units, it encourages affordable housing and includes the San Francisco project, so people won't expect 350 when there will really be 500 or 550. It has been recommended by the staff, the Planning Commission and the City Attorney. Ms. Dennis supported the motion because the Growth Management Program in fact has generally resulted in the midpoint, as far as the number of annual building permits pulled. This gives direction to the Council and by leaving in the Steering Committee's language on infrastructure, it gives specific guidance. The existing program accomplishes the 350 units mid- range asked for and has not been challenged. She agrees the program may not work in terms of providing predictability of a certain number of units to be built every year, she did not think it possible to control some elements of growth. There can be a framework that units can flow 07/02/96 -19-