CCMIN 05182021 - Laserfiche WebLink

review. She advised the SCAG number is 1.4 million as opposed to ABAG's 440,000. She remarked that whether or not these are the right numbers this is the hand everyone has been dealt. Councilmember Testa reported over 50 SCAG municipalities have already filed appeals based on the State's calculations of the numbers. She explained cities zone but do not develop the sites and noted the State does not provide funding for affordable housing. She remarked cities are being set up to fail by the inflated numbers with punishments associated with failure. In response to Councilmember Testa's inquiry, Assistant City Manager Dolan clarified all deed restrictions approved by the City over the last 13 years are in perpetuity and advised older projects have a 50-year window. Councilmember Arkin advised addressing the affordable component should be a priority. She noted looking at vacant commercial properties is important especially as more employers allow people to work from home and require less building space. She stressed the importance of looking at how other communities have looked at these challenges. She agreed with Mayor Brown and Mr. Olson that looking at the water impact is a very important point including using it in the appeal as a drought is approaching. She advised they should consider school impacts with the rezoning. Councilmember Narum advised her overarching policy consideration would be an equitable distribution of the 5,965 units throughout the City. She stressed preserving the character of the community, particularly in the downtown area, and stressed the need for objective design standards. She called for a discussion of the 20% versus 100% inclusionary standards and whether there is flexibility based on location within the City. She advised density should be discussed to add flexibility based on location. She advised her vote will come down to the flexibility and range in balancing character preservation against density and height of buildings. Councilmember Balch advised the community often learns about RHNA when multi-family units are built. He stressed teaching the community about the paradigm of density, inclusionary numbers, and acreage needs to come together. He noted blending the units throughout the community will be essential. He advised they should ask the community during the outreach if the City should take money from the General Fund to bolster the Housing Fund to incentivize low-income and very-low-income housing. He expressed appreciation to the public speakers for exposing a blind spot in his comments earlier about non-resident Pleasanton workers. Councilmember Balch suggested part of the outreach should be to poll if the City should be looking at 100% affordable projects partnered with a non-profit developer like Sunflower Hill. He believes funding will be the biggest challenge because Pleasanton will be asking the State for the same funds as almost every other city and county. He pointed out the 2027 point where the City's unfunded pension obligation is the highest falls within this RHNA cycle. He discussed the pros and cons of raising the 20% inclusionary level including sacrificing benefits like open space, parks, and roadway improvements in development. He cautioned that over-developing the east side with affordable units could sacrifice road improvements to Stanley Boulevard. Mayor Brown advised it would be hard for her to see 20% inclusionary zoning go by the wayside noting it is a cornerstone of Pleasanton and people do not know which units are priced affordable because they are built equally. She advised 100% inclusionary has a good argument as well and noted it will be a delicate balance for the City Council, Planning Commission, and Housing Commission. She noted past high-density building proposals have included a small strip of grass and a high structure not fitting the City. She remarked they will have to find a way to maintain the quality of life which makes Pleasanton a "high-opportunity community." City Council Minutes Page 9 of 10 May 18. 2021