PC 04/08/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

table which shows when build-out might be reached if construction continued at the exact maximum rate every year, which is unlikely given the way the ordinance is structured. However, if that were to happen, the process recommended by Chair Cooper would take approximately two years longer to build out than the consensus plan that was adopted by the City Council. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was none. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Chair Cooper noted for the record that he made his recommendation because he felt the City Council had been remiss in not asking for comments from the Planning Commission. He noted that it was already in ordinance form by the time the Planning Commission first reviewed it. He expressed concern with the adequacy of infrastructure being able to keep up with the proposed growth rate. He also expressed concern with school overcrowding and traffic congestion. He asked for a reason as to why the City Council did not go with the quickest way to 350 as a preferred alternative, noting that it was not adopted by the General Plan Committee based upon legal advice. He suggested that the Planning Commission send a resolution to the City Council regarding how this Commission wants to participate in the growth management process. Commission Kumaran asked Mr. Swift what the basis is for possible litigation under Option No. 4. Mr. Swift responded that the ordinance as written allows the City Council to make annual changes in the growth rate when the growth management report identifies a need for change. He further stated that the state law that was adopted a few years ago says that if a City adopts an ordinance that has a limit on the number of units that can be built in any one year, it can do so only under certain circumstances. He stated that there are very specific findings that the City has to make in order to do that. Because of staffs feeling that those findings could not be made at that point, the committee was put together to study the plan and reach a consensus. He pointed out that the options he presented to the Planning Commission allows it to play a role in the growth management process. Commissioner Barker reported that there are other cities where findings have been successfully made that limiting growth is necessary in order to preserve the quality of life. She feels that such a finding could successfully be made for Pleasanton based on the overcrowded schools alone. Commissioner Kumaran asked if the City was exposed any more to litigation now with the new ordinance than in the past. Mr. Swift noted that the previous growth management program predated the state law and the City Attorney's office felt that if the ordinance was left in place, which allowed growth to fluctuate from 0 to 750 units per year, then that was not adopting any new ordinance. Therefore, that particular ordinance was immune to challenge. However, by replacing that ordinance with the new one, it potentially opened up that issue to legal challenge. Chair Cooper asked whether the time limit for challenging the ordinance had expired. Ms. Seto stated that it could be challenged after its adoption; a citizen or interested party could ask the Court whether it _ violates due process rights. She also pointed out that there is a probability on each case that if somebody is denied a growth management allocation, then that person could also bring a legal challenge. Planning Commission Page 11 April 8, 1998