CCMIN050388 - Laserfiche WebLink

281 there is a project of enough value to the neighbors to make that approval she felt Council should give the applicant the opportunity to present their case. Councilmember Wilson stated he felt it is much more important to close the loopholes on the benchmark figures on those properties that were not within the City limits as of August 1, 1987, than to get so concerned about these few that are sitting there. He feels it is appropriate to let everyone know when it is appropriate to vote for it that there will be no growth management per- mits issued in 1989 so that the developers who are going out and spending a lot of money on improvements will know that this is a non-growth Council. Mayor Mercer stated that just because someone puts money up it does not entitle them to a project; there is no place in City Government that guaran- tees that because a developer puts his money up that he will have development rights. Developers take that risk when they start a project and that risk is that they may not be able to develop. He felt the growth management process should be allowed to go forward and the growth management committee can con- tinue to meet and come back with a recommendation to City Council on the mat- ter addressed at that time. He stated he has not been supportive of growth management recommendations but he feels the process ought to continue. Councilmember Wilson stated he agrees that people shouldn't get special consideration because they have spent money for engineering and architectural fees but he also thinks that since it seems this Council is anti-growth why not tell the people now of that position. After further discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Wilson, and secon- ded by Councilmember Brandes, to initiate a general plan change to eliminate the works "within the fall 1987 City limits"; therefore the general plan growth policy would read "achieve a 62,000 population benchmark by 1996". The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Wilson, and Mayor Mercer NOES: Councilmembers Butler and Mohr ABSENT: None Mayor Mercer stated that the growth management will meet to discuss from 0-162 units, then they will bring a recommendation back to City Council. It was moved by Councilmember Mohr, and seconded by Councilmembr Butler, that the low income standards that Council previous adopted with respect to the overall City and the difference with the NPID relative to the number of years the units should be held, the Alameda County medium income figure to determine the low income number which comes out of the HUD guidelines, and the percentage of units being held as they currently are {same standards are pre- viously established). The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Mohr, and Wilson NOES: Councilmember Brandes and Mayor Mercer ABSENT: None Councilmember Brandes stated he opposes the motion because it has a ten- dency to increase the ones that can be approved in a year and he is concerned not only about the benchmarks but how much goes in on a yearly basis and how soon that occurs. He voted against low income exemptions; by not having low income exemptions in no way does not mean that Council cannot approve low in- come projects because if it is able to stand on its own merits and the needs, 20 - 5-3-88