CCMIN021500 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pico referred to the Chamber' s statement about the "critical imbalance ofj obs and housing". He asked if the Chamber considered the fact that the City is approaching buildout within the urban growth boundary and dwelling unit limit approved by the voters. Did the Chamber consider that East Dublin will have 12,000 dwelling units, Dougherty Valley will have 7,000 or 8,000 homes, and the North Livermore area will have about 37,000 new residents. There is about a forty year supply of housing proposed. How can the Chamber say there is a jobs/housing imbalance? Mr. Bouchard said if one only considered Pleasanton, the statement was true. Mr. Pico was disappointed that the partnership between the residents, the City and the business community has not happened. Mr. Pico and Ms. Ayala asked if there were any positive statements about the measure made at the Chamber Board meeting. Mr. Bouchard said there were, but he could not remember them at this time. Mayor Tarver suggested staff be given an opportunity to provide answers to the concerns raised by the Chamber Board to see if that changes the position of the Chamber. In addition to his previous questions to staff, he also asked staff to explain how the capital improvement program is funded, how specific facilities that would be needed by buildout were identified, where the funding for those facilities would be found, and the fact that some of those facilities may be located on the Bernal property if it is acquired through Measure I. He wanted to make certain the public has as much information as possible, but the actual infrastructure and costs of that infrastrncmre are unknown until an actual plan is formulated. He referred to concerns raised about more taxes and costs to the voters and he wanted an explanation of the facility fees, capital improvement program, and general fund contributions to the capital improvement program so the public can understand the issues. Ms. Acosta indicated staff has tried to answer those questions in the written documents and in a variety of ways. Public facility fees are collected as development occurs, which fees are applied to a list of capital improvements that were identified through a process with the community about a year or two ago. Many of those facilities could be situated on the Bernal property. Some money has already been collected and more will be collected in the future until the City reaches buildout. The financial policies of the City have been changed to make certain that the General Plan is sustainable at buildout. There will continue to be capital improvements even after new development has stopped. Funds are set aside at about $3 million a year from existing tax revenue for capital improvements. In addition to that, there are development fees and some one-time revenue sources. Under the fee system adopted, the $3 million will be increased to $6 million over the next few years. If voters approve the purchase of the Bernal property, a land use plan would be developed and go to the voters for approval. Construction of that plan would then occur in phases. She indicated there would be revenue sources for that construction, but it is a matter of time and priorities. Priorities are set annually and are Pleasanton City Council 11 02/15/00 Minutes