CCMIN081683 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Brandes advised that the dwelling units shown did not take into account any future lapsing of GMP or RAP allocations before 1986. . Discussion ensued regarding benchmarks and the 2% growth rate. Mr. Walker ad- vised that the 2% growth rate was not spread out evenly over the twenty year period. He indicated there is in excess of 2,000 units that could be built under GMP and RAP. Mayor Butler stated that the GMP is the limiting factor, not sewage capacity, over the growth rate. Commissioner Wilson asked why the City should consider applications for development if GMP or sewer capacity is not available. The City Attorney advised that the City was Cit ' obligated. to process applications but that the City staff carefully disclose the y s situation so that the developers will be under no delusions about sewer capacity or GMP approval. Councilmember Brandes stated that if a project comes before the City that has special merit and would be in the best interests of the community, then a long-term agreement could be worked out to allow approval of such a project. The City Attorney advised that special findings could be determined to allow approval of projects deemed worthy of such approval even if such an approval would nominally exceed a benchmark policy. He also stated that Council and Planning Commission could set priorities on the scarce amount of sewage capacity or GMP approvals that remain. Commissioner Jamieson asked if Council has considered placing GMP controls on commercial development, such as those on residential development. Mayor Butler stated that Council does not feel these constraints are necessary for commercial/industrial development. He added the concern has always been with population, housing forecasts, and amount of sewage for housing. Commissioner Wilson stated he has concerns regarding the ability of the City to supply housing for people who will be working in the valley after future industrial development is completed. He questioned the accuracy of the general plan. Council- member Brandes stated that general plans are intended to be general, and that with the current review that is being completed by the General Plan Review Committee, he would not want to change the general plan in any way until after consideration of the study being done by that committee. He stated that he felt a general plan should be reviewed every 7-10 years to to change major policies very often would undermine the confidence of the voters in city government. Mr. Walker advised there is a large reserve of sewage capacity for residential use in the 1972 settlement agreement that has not been included in his report and is in addition to the 350,000 gallons of unallocated sewer capacity. Council assured Planning Commission that they feel there is ample sewerage capa- city to provide planned residential housing and anticipated commercial/industrial development in Pleasanton to 1996, provided expansion plans are completed as expected, and that the near future can be taken care of without any further expansion. Councilmember Wood stated he has a hang up with the law that says a city must provide housing for everyone who works in that city. Councilmember Brandes stated he felt the presentation by the Downtown Association earlier stressed the number of people in Pleasanton who work outside of the City now, and the importance of the encouragement of the type of business development that could hire residents who already live within the City. Mayor Butler thanked the large audience who attended because of their interest in matters related to the City. 2. s/16/s3