Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Brandes suggested that large lot developments could <br />be included as an exemption to the growth rate. Mr. Lee noted <br />that single family homes on individual lots currently are an <br />exemption. <br /> <br />Mayor Mercer expressed an interest in preserving long term <br />agreements as a method of extending residential growth over time. <br />He noted that long term agreements also help the City plan for <br />the long term and could provide the basis of setting aside a <br />percentage of sewer capacity for residential development. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hoyt suggested that infrastructure is a logical <br />basis for planning future City growth and that traffic is a major <br />consideration especially in the short term. <br /> <br />There was a consensus on Discussion Topic 1 to maintain some form <br />of growth management system i~ Pleasanton. <br /> <br />Discussion Topic 2 <br /> <br />Councilmember Butler suggested the difficulty of using population <br />benchmarks to control the Council's approval of residential <br />projects when those projects are proposed in terms of housing <br />units. He suggested that the Residential Review Committee's <br />recommendations made sense, basing growth control on <br />infrastructure and services. He suggested such an assessment <br />could be done on a three to five year basis. <br /> <br />Councilmember Mohr also agreed with the basic approach suggested <br />by the Committee. <br /> <br />Councilmember Brandes expressed a concern with the Committee's <br />recommendation. He said people in the community understand <br />population and, therefore, the City should use population <br />benchmarks to manage growth over a ten year period, however, he <br />suggested that the current population benchmarks need to be <br />changed. <br /> <br />Commissioner Innes agreed that some growth limits were desirable <br />and that the impacts of that growth on the community should be <br />evaluated. <br /> <br />Mayor Mercer also liked the Committee's recommendations but did <br />think that an annual review of infrastructure and service may be <br />too frequent. He suggested a yearly range of housing units be <br />allocated, a percentage of those units allocated to long term <br />agreements and other projects, and the resulting population <br />estimated. <br /> <br />Councilmember Butler reiterated his recommendation to make growth <br />management allocated solely on the basis of housing units. <br /> <br />There was a consensus to use a range of housing units as well as <br />an evaluation of infrastructure, public services, and other <br />factors as a method for managing growth. <br /> <br /> - 2 - <br /> <br /> <br />