My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN101700
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
CCMIN101700
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:32 AM
Creation date
11/20/2000 5:37:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/17/2000
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN101700
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
when then they can afford a $5,000 per month house payment. For the City Council to <br />casually add another $40,000 to the cost of Pleasanton housing would push the dream of <br />owning a home in Pleasanton further from our children. <br /> <br /> Mr. MacDonald further stated that there are alternatives that are not so destructive <br />to housing affordability. Housing can be affordable by design rather than by subsidy. He <br />stated that we need to use incentives and ~afe harbor regulations to provide affordable <br />housing in market mechanisms and the ordinance in front of Council does not do this. <br />The Chamber of Commerce has vohmtcemd to work with the City in this problem. He <br />stated that what is needed is smart planning, but this inclusionary ordinance is dumb <br />planfling. Our children can have affordable housing, but only when we rediscover and <br />unleash the power of a free housing market. He understood that many powerful and well <br />meaning people support the concept of inclusionary zoning, but he could not remain <br />silent because most of the people who will pay the $40,000 more for their homes do not <br />yet have a voice or a vote in Pleasanton politics. They am future home purchasers and <br />many of them are oar children. He stated that he could not remain silent because most of <br />the people who will pay $100 per month or more in rent increases if the inchsionary <br />ordinance is adopted do not even realize the severe impact that the vote taken tonight <br />could have on their cost of living. They know that their rents are going up drastically. <br />He asked that the ordinance be set aside and have a discussion about how to have an <br />inclusionary ordinance that promotes housing a~brdability and does not make housing <br />less affordable in Pleasanton. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico asked if Pleasanton could adopt a fee and than conduct a study, with any <br />differences being reimbursed in the future. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said that when a fee is adopted, Council needs to have evidence to <br />justify the fee. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver asked if Pleasanton could say to anyone who wanted to develop a <br />less than 15 unit development that you will pay a fee that will be established by the new <br />ordinance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush responded that normally the entire fee is paid when the building permit <br />is issued. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis recalled that in the General Plan there is a provision for density <br />bonuses. She inquired if a General Plan modification was needed. <br /> <br />Mr. Bocian advised that the ordinance is contemplated as part of the General Plan. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked about the Chamber of Commerce opportunity to further <br />review incentives. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 10 10/17/00 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.