CCMIN071596 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Roush indicated any time a portion of the General Plan were changed, whether in the growth management area or otherwise, it opens that area to challenge. If the existing annual housing growth rate as it exists now is retained, without the proposed modifications about midpoint, that is the safest course of action. Council would still have the same discretion it has today in terms of choosing zero units or 650 units, depending on the normal factors. Regarding the question about whether setting a midpoint target is subject to the same findings as if there were a growth cap, the answer is no. Council lays out the various factors, periodic assessment of housing need, employment growth, availability of infrastructure, etc. to select the number of units for growth management. Ms. Dennis asked if criteria could be added to the factors used in determining growth management. Mr. Roush said yes. Mr. Tarvet felt that Council's modification to the growth management program could be challenged as arbitrary and capricious unless there are findings. He was troubled that the existing program would be jeopardized unless there are sufficient findings to show good cause to adopt the new regulation. Any initiative in this area must also be consistent with the General Plan and make the necessary findings. He felt the prudent course of action was to do nothing. He was also concerned about the Urban Growth Boundary. Ms. Dennis agreed it would be good for an outside person to look for holes in our arguments. Ms. Michelotti indicated there was an opinion from staff regarding growth management. Mr. Roush felt there is a difference between setting a cap and a guideline. Staff had conscientiously looked for findings and an adequate record to support the action. Mr. Tarvet posed the hypothetical situation that Council approved 250 units in order to hit the midpoint target in the policy. How does one defend in court the allegation that it is arbitrary and capricious and that there are no findings to support the policy. Mr. Roush felt that if a particular number were set and Council chose 250 units without looking at the specified criteria, then there could be a challenge. Presumably, the City could indicate the number was justified based on the criteria. Ms. Dennis preferred to have findings to back up any decisions. She felt there are people who would be interested in challenging Pleasanton's policies. 07/15/96 - 18-