CCMIN120677 - Laserfiche WebLink

MINUTES of THE MEETING of THE CITY COUNCIL December 6, 1977 CALL TO ORDER ~yor Robert Philcox called the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 8:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Deputy City Clerk Doris George called the roll which is recorded as follows: Councilmembers Brandes, Herlihy, LeClaire, Mercer, and Mayor Philcox were present. Mr. Brown, City Manager, Mr. Scheidig, City Attorney, Mr. Harris, Director of Planning and Community Development, and Mr. Swift, Planning Analyst, were present. REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATION PLAN ~yor Philcox stated this was the second meeting held for the City Council to study and review the Residential Allocation Program. He stated that the six alternatives presented in the report of the Director of Planning and Community Development dated November 22, 1977, were discussed as well as an additional alternative presented by Councilmember Brandes. Mr. Harris presented his report dated December 2, 1977, regarding the possible alternative presented by Councilmember Brandes. After discussion, this alterna- tive was further clarified to indicate that projects in the Sunol area and the VCSD area would first be ranked according to superior projects in each area and then the number of units to be authorized in each area would be determined. The proposal is similar to alternative number 5 except that the ranking of projects precedes the allocation of units in the Sunol and VCSD areas. · M~. Swift presented a map showing how developable residential projects might score on points, and he noted that most of the developable property is in the VCSD area. Discussion ensued regarding the value of the Residential Allocation Program, possible increase in bedroom tax or addition of a transfer or sales tax in order to increase revenue for capital improvements. Councilmember Brandes requested the City Attorney to investigate the possibility of a transfer or resale tax in a General Law City. Mr. Scheidig explained why it is important to retain in the program to be selected, the two service areas; and how allocation between the areas can be done. He noted that the selection of projects within each area was the dis- tinguishing difference between alternatives 5, 6, and 7, in comparison to alternatives 3 and 4. Further Council and staff discussion ensued regarding the various alterna- tives.