CCMIN111501 - Laserfiche WebLink

ABAG numbers, that Council encourage use of the General Plan growth management allowance of 650 units plus 100 affordable units in order to meet the ABAG requirements. That gives Council the option to change growth management as necessary. She had a real problem with the fact that allocations keep being moved forward. She was concerned that 2006 would arrive and suddenly the City would have to approve over 3,000 houses to meet its fair share housing goals. She was also concerned that the proposed Housing Element is heavily slanted toward low and very low income housing and not enough attention is paid to moderate housing. Ifa low income housing fee of $80,000 is imposed, she felt it would require more million dollar houses to support the low income housing. That leaves out the moderate income families. Most teachers in Pleasanton have salaries above the requirement for low income housing. She wanted to encourage development of smaller homes. Policy 16 suggested building 800-1,200 sq. ft. units, but this is for low income, not moderate income, families. She suggested a review of the inclusionary ordinance to see if it is working. She also wanted to monitor secondary units. She agreed with raising height limits to allow secondary housing over garages downtown. She agreed with aiding non-profit organizations and not requiring them to go through the growth management process. She agreed with the Mayor that this is an unfunded state mandate. She felt an additional priority should be building energy efficient homes and conserving natural resources and improving transportation. These are still parts of the General Plan that the community is concerned about. She also did not like the word "guarantee" in the Housing Element. She would be against eliminating hearings or circumventing the PUD process. Ms. Michelotti asked about "guaranteeing" anything. How does that fit with the fact that anything approved can be the subject of a referendum? Mr. Arkin said he has talked to many people in the community and they do not know what is going on; they don't know what ABAG is or the requirements that are being imposed on the City. He believes this means double homes are to be built in a year and people are against that. There is a cap of 29,000 homes. He did not think we have to build all that in the next six years. We should not rush to use that allocation. He would like to see a policy addressing senior needs. He felt senior housing was more acceptable to the community than other types. It does not add to the school population or traffic congestion. He said 64% of the residents were willing to tax themselves in order to have fewer houses on the Bernal property. He did not believe there was community support to put additional homes on that property now or to allow the high density proposed. He felt the proposed Housing Element should include regulations that development pay the full regional transportation fee as proposed by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council. The Planning Commission has added a condition to market rate homes that requires when a home is resold that first preference be given to people who already live in the community. The School District has based its facility planning on the housing cap of 29,000 and he did not want to go above that because of potential impacts on the schools. He felt the Housing Element should be completely redone because as drafted it does not represent the views of a majority of the community. Mr. Sullivan agreed it is clear we need affordable housing and he commended the Task Force for its innovation. There is a balancing act among the General Plan goals, the growth management program, the housing cap, the urban growth boundary, sustainable development, etc. There is a public approval process to be followed. He questioned the legitimacy of the Pleasanton City Council Joint Meeting Minutes 11 11/15/01