CCMIN050388 - Laserfiche WebLink

283 It was moved by Councilmember Butler, and seconded by Councilmember Mohr, to clarify that when the two projects, Northern 6roup and Trammel] Crow, were approved they were intended to be approved as exempt lower-income projects. The roll ca]] vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Mohr, Wilson, and Hayor Mercer NOES: Councilmember Butler ASSENT: None Councilmember Wilson addressed the genera] plan growth polices on page 3 of the staff report, second paragraph, item 2; achieve a 62,000 population bench mark by 1996 within the fall 1987 City limits. What this paragraph says that by 1996 the City could have a population of maybe 80,000 people, jr- regardless of the 62,000 benchmark because the policy states the properties that were not within the City limits on August 1, 1987 would not could on the benchmark. He felt this is wrong and should be corrected. The population that will be created in lands that were not annexed to the City of Pleasanton until after August 1, 1987 would not count in the benchmarks; that could add up to 80,00 people. Council can approve up to 1,000 units per year and there are only 1,000 units to go to be to 62,000, and Council can still go through 1990 at 1,000 units on properties not within the City limits on August 1, 1987. 0 Councilmember Wilson stated he felt the benchmarks should be established OD on the lands that were either within the City on August 1 or after August 1, (.y.) 1987. ~ Mayor Mercer asked what Council should do with those projects that have ~ been approved that were not within the City by August 1, 1987. Councilmember mC~[ Wilson felt they should be counted in the benchmark. Councilmember Butler stated that under growth management they would not be counted in the 62,000. Councilmember Brandes stated he would like to see that benchmark include anything that has been or will be within the City limits of Pleasanton. He asked that this matter be considered at the next General Plan consideration time. It was moved by Councilmember Brandes, and seconded by Mayor Mercer, that there be no growth management allocations for this year and the subcommittee not meet. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmember Brandes NOES: Councilmembers Butler, Mohr, Wilson, and Mayor Mercer ABSENT: None Councilmember Butler pointed out that opening the door for further alloca- tions which Council did in the previous motion he wanted that not to be shown as supporting any further allocations for this year. He is not convinced that it should be completed closed off, some of the smaller projects be worthwhile. Councilmember Mohr stated that as a designated growth management committee member and as one speaker pointed out that a project has a benefit that the neighbors would very much like to see happen, she feels it would be worthwhile to look further at this project as well as others with similar positions. If : 19- 5-3-88