CCMIN080487 - Laserfiche WebLink

267 Councilmember Brandes stated it is important to note this does not change or hinder the general plan; it is a safety check. He stated that when limits are set it is possible to provide the necessary services that so many have talked about tonight. Councilmember Butler stated he felt everyone understands the fact that the School District has had a difficult time in being able to provide for their needs. He felt it is fair and important to point out that the City has been following the general plan closely over the last ten years but he did not feel it is fair to say the Council cannot predict what the City is going to do over the next ten years. He stated there will not be any uncontrolled or unplanned growth. He stated there is no way he can suuport the above motion. Council has very carefully considered the work of the General Plan Review Committee and basically implemented most of the work that the Committee did. He took exception to the benchmark. He stated the City had a RAP program which worked for four years. Now after barely twelve months some are saying the general plan is not workable. Councilmember Butler stated there is a place for com- promise. He felt Council should look at the annual allocation limits. He disagreed with the population benchmarks and that no exemptions be allowed. He felt already approved projects such as Trammell Crow and the Northern Group should be grandfathered in. Councilmember Mohr stated she agrees with Councilmember Butler. She fol- lowed the General Plan Committee through most of that process. One of the key points was the need to include some kind of incentive for low income units. She stated the recommendation for 260-650 units with 350 bonus for Council to use at its discretion will invite such builders to develop in Pleasanton; they cannot compete with other projects. She stated the 1,000 cap will work as a safety check. She felt the General Plan has worked well. Most of the units pending have long term agreements. She asked that the motion include consid- eration of exemption for all senior citizen housing, which would not be in- cluded in the benchmarks or annual allocation. Councilmember Wilson stated he felt that under Land Use Amendment Options, (c) Add a new Program 11.5 "to limit development with in the San Francisco Water Department lands...", should be eliminated. He also felt the existing residential development contracts should be grandfathered in. It was moved by Councilmember Brandes that Alternative 2 of Staff Report 87:336 be approved with the understanding that the vacancy factor and unan- nexed property be on top of those figures. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Brandes stated he felt the exemption provisions should be applied to those developers who still have to go through the Growth Management Program; they should not be exempt. Mayor Mercer stated he felt the exemptions for small builders should be 5 per year in place of twelve; there should be no more than 1,000 units per year, all units will come through the Growth Management Program, and there be no exemption to the Growth Management Program. He stated that Growth Manage- ment Program decisions could be made in June for the following year's occupan- cy. He was in favor of all property annexed after this decision is on top of the 64,500. He was in favor of the 4% vacancy factor, and the TMI, Staples, and San Francisco property would be zoned Specific Plan. 10 - 8-4-87