CCMIN111501 - Laserfiche WebLink

There was a break at 10:48 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:58 p.m. Mr. Swift indicated the fees vary from project to project. The basic fees are water, sewer, and school impact. For a moderate house the fee could be $30,000 to $35,000. Some are a lot higher and some lower. It is very complicated to calculate. Ms. Ayala believed more public input was necessary. She wanted the Housing Element to have more flexibility. She was happy with staffrecommendations 1-12. She asked if there was an area that cannot be changed at a later date? Mr. Swift said there is nothing that cannot be changed after the formal approval process. Ms. McKeehan said there is a need to meet the state requirement to complete this process by the end of the year. On the other hand, if we submit a draft housing element, that will satisfy that requirement. Given Council's concerns about a public process, she suggested sending a letter to the State describing the process Pleasanton has followed and asking for an extension of time to submit the Housing Element. Considering the number of Housing Elements the state will have to review, if we show a good faith effort that we are moving ahead, that would be much better than submitting a document that Council would want to change later. Ms. Ayala agreed it would be better to go through a public process before submitting the document. She was not comfortable submitting it as is. She thanked the Task Force for its work. There were good comments about strengthening the inclusionary zoning requirements. She believed there was flexibility in the growth management ordinance to accommodate affordable housing developers. She had no problem changing the midpoint density from 15 to 20 units per acre. She was not in favor of density guarantees. She was not in favor of guaranteeing anything. She supported second units according to the staff recommendations. She was hesitant about lowering fees. People expect amenities in Pleasanton and those fees are necessary. She also did not want to reduce the school fees because that would affect the developer agreement with the School District. She also felt the School Board should review this Housing Element. She agreed with consideration of redevelopment in certain areas, but felt it was difficult to find blighted areas in Pleasanton. She supported the staffrecommendation regarding the at risk affordable units, energy conservation, incentives for non-profits. With regard to increasing the heights in the downtown area, she reserved her comments until the Downtown Specific Plan Committee completes its deliberations. She also reserved her comments about preference criteria until the revised program comes before Council at its next meeting. Ms. Dennis felt people were concerned about the mix of housing and did not want to have economic segregation. We need a policy regarding above market rate units in high density proposals. We need to approve market rate to support lower income. We need to prioritize between very low and low income units. She felt the City has met the needs for low income, but we need more very low income units. She suggested a sliding scale ofincentives. Shewas confused about increasing midpoint density. In one place staffencouraged increasing the Pleasanton City Council Joint Meeting Minutes 13 11/15/01