CCMIN031902 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Pico asked if staff supported a motion to support the staff recommendation in the staff report, and include staff recommendations regarding the recommendations from the Home Builders Association, and the staff recommendations with respect to the comments from the Planning Commission. Mr. Iserson said yes. It would also include the recommendation regarding growth management on page 4 of the staffreport, which introduced a new program to allow the Council in a particular year to go over the growth management allocation limit. Mayor Pico said he could accept all the staffrecommendations except the comment from the Home Builders Association (HBA) regarding Program 16.3. He would like to delete the words "at least" and following, so it reads "Strive to construct, rehabilitate, and conserve the regional share of housing by the conclusion of the current Regional Housing Needs Determination period - June 30, 2006." Ms. Ayala wanted to see the new allocation chart for all the cities in order to get a general idea what this region would look if every city reached its goals by 2006. She thought it would be a big mess, because the infrastructure is not available to go with the housing. Mr. Iserson said he did not have the figures for the entire Bay Area, but he said for Alameda County the total projected housing needs is 46,793 units in the County by 2006. Ms. Ayala asked if this region has the roads, energy, water, sewer, etc. to take care of 47,000 additional housing units.'? Mr. lserson could not say at the present time, but any city moving toward meeting the goals would have to make sure its local infrastructure is provided. The region would have to address the freeways and those kinds of things. It was debatable whether the freeways could handle the traffic from that number of additional housing units. Ms. Michelotti asked how the housing goals mesh with the current growth management allocations and the growth limits in the General Plan. Can the City meet the housing goals under that program7 Mr. lserson said it would be difficult, but it could work. The ordinance includes flexible wording and Council at its annual review of allocations could make a determination that would allow the City to meet the housing goals. The economy has slowed in the last few years and developers have not even taken out permits they are allowed. In theory the City could meet its goals; practically, it is unlikely. Mayor Pico referred to Program 16.3 and suggested the following wording: "Strive to construct, rehabilitate, and conserve the City's regional share of housing within the constraints of available infrastructure, traffic, air quality, and financial limitations." Mr. Iserson said that language is already in the policies and programs under Growth Management. It would be no problem to add it to Program 16.3 as well. Pleasanton City Council 16 03/19/02 Minutes