CCMIN101700 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Dennis asked about the issue of priority processing in the ordinance, and asked for further description as to what is priority processing and were there more details than existed in the staff report. Mr. Bocian said the City currently has a process in place where the City can fast track developments through the building and engineering departments and that is what this entry refers to. Ms. Betty Levin, 3178 Weymouth Court, said that if the summary of vaeant land is looked at in the staff report it seems noticeable and notable that much of the property is in very expensive neighborhoods where affordable housing is not going to happen. As inelusionary zoning is proposed at this point in time, it simply would not apply to these units. Pleasanton is tarruing out of land and is very quickly rtmning out of opportunities. Pleasanton cannot afford to gamble with affordable housing at this time. The City has not met its goals and by all general appearances the City will not be able to meet ABAG's requirements. Pleasanton needs to adopt a strict plan with strict requirements. lnclusionary zoning is the only way to work to obtain their goals. To deny the inclusionary zoning ordinance is, in her opinion, simply a way to say that the City does not want "that kind" of people living in "our" neighborhood. She felt this opinion is based on fear and on ignorance. What will happen to Pleasanton's economic future and the future of property values? Property values have soared dramatically in recent years, but where do we expect the people that police the streets, teach our children, and provide other valuable services, to live. If businesses are unable to attract and retain employees, it only stands to reason that these businesses will go elsewhere, so property values will decline. Not approving the inclusio~ary zoning ordinance will limit options for the City. Barbara Hempill, 4508 Eull Court, is a member of the Livermore-Amador Valley League of Women Voters. She said that based on its recently revised housing studies, the League supports CotmeWs efforts to increase the supply of housing for low and moderate income people in the City of Pleasanton. As a Human Services Commission member, she encouraged the Council to advocate at both the State and Federal level for housing programs that will augment the number of affordable units in the Bay Area. Ms. Dennis said one of the things she finds interesting is that Pleasanton has done a good job with affordable housing but there is still more work to do. Last year Pleasanton built more apartntents than any other kind of housing. Apartment rental prices went up anyway. This is a regional situation that is not solved just in Pleasanton. The fee and the inclusion serves the immediate need to meet the needs of a certain percent of the median income households. Rent control does not solve the problem. This ordinance provides an opportunity for people at a point in their lives and is part of what makes Pleasanton a great place to live. We have more aftBrdable housing than most communities, to our credit, making it a vibrant place. There is a real positive impact to this issue. She appreciated all of the work put into this ordinance. We need to make this investment since Pleasanton is almost at build out and to assure that the City meets its goals. It is very important to look at affordable housing differently than rental housing because the availability of the infrastructure for the different income levels in the City is Pleasanton City Council 14 10/17/00 Minutes