CC MIN 03152022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Brown noted projects would still come back to Council. Councilmember Narum agreed, noting it will ultimately be the Council's decision. She accepted the amendment. Councilmember Balch also accepted the amendment. In response to Councilmember Testa, Senior Planner Bonn confirmed that IZO is only applicable on housing projects of 15 units or more. In response to Councilmember Testa, Director Clark confirmed the City charges a LIHF fee for every project, even a single-family home being split under Senate Bill 9. MOTION: It was m/s by Narum/Balch to approve the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance with 20% distribution for both, including Planning Commission recommendation and consideration of limitations on in-lieu fees. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Narum, Testa, Mayor Brown Noes: None Absent: None Senior Planner Bonn reported on the staff, Planning Commission, and Housing Commission recommendations on an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ). Director Clark advised the topic was brought up by a Planning Commissioner. Staff found it would be too heavy of a lift to accommodate a standard above the State's. In response to Councilmember Testa, Director Clark clarified it is about recognizing there are two sides to a coin because if you want to offer 100% affordable housing a City generally has to offer more density and fewer restrictions on things like building size and parking in return. Councilmember Testa noted the value capture of an AHOZ. She advised she had a conversation with another community that explored the concept and advised it makes projects undesirable for the community. Councilmember Narum called to have AHOZ tabled or continued until after the City Council has discussed the CSCDA Program. She advised the CSCDA sounds like a better way to go. Mayor Brown called to table the discussion regarding AHOZ. The dais concurred. Senior Planner Bonn reported on the staff, Planning Commission, and Housing Commission's recommendations for defining workforce housing. In response to Mayor Brown, Director Clark clarified the intention is to put a finer point on what constitutes workforce housing for better policy targeting. Councilmember Narum recommended not having a definition due to concerns of where to stop the inclusion list. Councilmember Testa endorsed the staff's recommendation of Option 2 using AMI as a delineation. In response to Mayor Brown, Councilmember Testa advised she wants Pleasanton's workers to have the first preference. In response to Councilmember Arkin, Director Clark clarified they could add a provision specifying local employees to Option 2. Councilmember Narum noted AMI is based on all of Alameda County and just not Pleasanton. City Council Minutes Page 14 of 22 March 15,2022