CCMIN111501 - Laserfiche WebLink

ABAG fair share housing figures. There have been changes in the economy that should be considered. He did not support tying the growth management allocations to the ABAG numbers and wanted to keep the current allocation limits. In fact, he felt the numbers should be reversed to have 300 affordable units and 150 market rate units a year. He supported some increase in the density from midpoint, especially near transit or mixed use areas. The one concern he had was creating affordability ghettos. He did not support any density guarantees or development by right. He supported the recommendations regarding second units. He agreed more flexibility is needed for fees based on square feet, but felt the fees should be higher on larger units as a disincentive. He supported the inclusionary zoning recommendations and agreed with energy or resource conservation points. Lower utility bills contribute to making a home affordable. He supported reviewing various locations for affordable housing including Hacienda Business Park. He felt it would be worthwhile to consider more housing units on the Bernal property if they were located near a train station. He was uncomfortable going forward with this Housing Element without further public review. Finally, he supported sending projects to the Housing Commission for review. He believed the in lieu fee should be increased. Mr. Harvey believed the most important things about the proposed Housing Element are those provisions that actually require the houses to be built. He agreed the growth management allocations should be reversed with more affordable than market rate units. He said 15% of 29,000 is 4,350 units and what is in the plan to be built as of now is 1,200 low income housing units. That says we already are 3,000 units behind. Ms. Levin pointed out that a one-person moderate income household can only make $40,100 to be eligible for a below market unit. She felt the community at large has a false idea as to what kind of person is in the moderate income household. There is also a misconception about the number of children from low income families. It is no greater than any other family and we should not fear these people are not paying their fair share for the schools. Ms. Steiner said she has been a long-term support of senior housing, however she reminded Council that this is the way many cities in California have placated state housing policies for years. It is not a be all and end all. Seniors are great for the community, however they don't support the community. We need family housing to pay for services. We have workers in the community who need housing. The biggest void is low and moderate income housing. Mr. Jones pointed out that in the recent community survey, affordable housing was listed as number 2 in the needs category. Ms. Michelotti asked about the price of land in Hacienda Business Park. Would it be feasible for a developer to raze an existing building to convert the land use? Mr. Paxson said with regard to undeveloped land that was very hard to determine right now. Building values are holding strong. He believed in order for a developer to raze a building and change land use for housing, some very strong incentives would be necessary. Ms. Michelotti asked what the fees for each housing unit were? Pleasanton City Council Joint Meeting Minutes 12 11/15/01