CCMIN021670 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Getton repeated his question to Mr. Pearson because he felt i~ had not been answered. Mr. Pearson replied that a moratorium would not accomplish any- thing as far as the already zoned residential and multiple lots. Mr. Pearson also stated that if it were possible, a growth limitation should be placed on the City so that never at any time would the City grow at a rate that would be detrimental to our environment. He further stated that because the City does not have abso- lute power in controlling growth, he would suggest that the Council should be trying to have a law passed that would allow the City this control. Mr. Pearson also stated that the City, even with the present laws, c~n do a great deal to con- trol growth by denying applications from the developers for rezonings to increase densities. Mr. Pearson indicated that the attitude of the Council must be changed in order to place environmental problems on a par w~th economic problems. Councilman Rega interjected a question to Mr. Pearson which asked him to clarify his reference to ~'The Council". Councilman Rega stated that he took ex- ception to Mr. Pearson's reference. Mr. Pearson stated his remarks were directed to the majority of the Councilmen who vote on the rezoning issues and further stated that he felt Councilman Rega had one of the better records on which to stand. Mr. Pearson again emphasized that if the City Council will refuse to rezone the tracts in order to prohibit the developers to build smaller homes on smaller lots, then the City would be controlling growth. Mayor Getton asked Mr. Pearson if he felt the 4.7 density per gross acre was too high and Mr. Pearson was inclined to believe it was. Mayor Getton asked Mr. Pearson if his petition had anything to do with ethnic groups and Mr. Pearson said it did not. Councilman Spiliotopoulos asked Mr. Pearson if he considered the goals of the General Plan to be adequate. Mr, Pearson replied that he had no particular quarrel with the plan and felt that the General Plan Eeview Committee might be rou ' one answer to his g p s petition, providing that the citizens appointed are con- cerned about the issues of air pollution, sewage, and an overcrowded school system. Dr. Ray Haskell, District School Superintendent, reported on the effect of continued growth and proposed density changes on schools. Dr. Haskell stated that the average yearly student increase for the past five years has been 408 students and based on this past five-year growth pattern, it would appear that the estimated maximum growth of 450 students per year for 1971 and 1972 is justified. Dr. Haskell called attention to the foresight of both the Elementary and High School Board of Trustees to purchase a number of school sites throughout the City. Dr. Haskell indicated that at the present time there are 585 reserve seating capacity in the Pleasanton Elementary Schools and there will be a reserve of 308 seats at the beginning of September, after admitting the anticipated February to September growth of 277 students. Dr. Haskell outlined the building program, anticipated growth, and the unused spaces. He emphasized that the District would not be able to construct the school in the Fairlands area unless the District continues to grow at a rate of 450 stu- dents per year and at least 350 foundations for houses can be counted at the time of applying for State Building Aid. Dr. Haskell concluded this portion of his report by stating that given a yearly community expansion and school enrollment growth slightly greater than the average yearly growth for the past five years, the Pleasanton Elementary School District can house all new children expected through 1973-74 without double ses- sions and overcrowding. Dr. Haskell then reported on the effect of proposed neighborhood density changes on the schools. He explained the State Building Aid formula for both the Elemen- tary and High Schools. He stated that the State formula is geared to meeting growth needs in those Districts that experience; 1) continuous steady growth, 2) a community with a majority of primary children, and 3) a community that builds a variety of housing units including apartments, multi-plexes and townhouses which generate square footage while producing few children. Dr. Haskell stated that the formula handicaps school districts in which the opposite conditions exist or when growth is limited to single family dwellings on a large lot. Dr. Haskell concluded his report by making the following statements: 1. The maximum beneficial effect of neighborhood density increases on a school district would be to cut in half the number of students generated from a typical R-1 development while at the same time doubling the amount of assessed valuation behind each new student to be educated. 2. The minimum beneficial effect of increasing neighborhood density on a school district would be to have an appreciable reduction in the number of children generated and an appreciable increase in wealth per student to be educated.