CCMIN111501 - Laserfiche WebLink

midpoint for high density, but in another there was discussion about using the 25% state density bonus. Regarding secondary units, she suggested using low income housing fees as an incentive to encourage secondary unit rental. She also thought it was a good idea to use Section 8 vouchers. She was also concerned about guaranteeing densities for projects and she thought the state will require the City to actually zone the land high density not just designate it as that on the General Plan. She referred to page 8, policy 29, regarding growth management and felt that somewhere in the growth management report, there needs to be an evaluation of whether the City is meeting its affordable housing goals. Unless there is a place in the growth management plan that reflects the goals, there will be continuous debates about accommodating housing needs. In terms of whose standards to use to meet housing needs, she agreed it is grating to have to accept the state standards. Even though people don't know what ABAG is, we are obligated to address affordable housing needs. The community survey says we need affordable housing and the state standards say how we should meet those goals. The citizens supported Measure D and we need to continue to support the state goals. She liked the idea of mixed commercial and residential uses. She agreed to increases in the affordable housing fee. She did not know why the School District should be concerned about raising the fees. The General Plan has always included an affordable housing fee. She thanked the committee for its hard work. Thiswasadifficultjob and they were very creative. She was in favor of having high density above moderate income units. Ms. Michelotti felt the key to all this is to look at solutions rather than focus on numbers. She wanted to maintain and strengthen the inclusionary zoning ordinance. Any fees imposed must be reasonable. She was concerned about moderately priced units having to pay higher fees in order for someone else to have an affordable unit. She agreed with other comments about not having any "guarantees". She had concerns about three-story units downtown and height limitations. Remarks are made that development has to pay for itself and the City piles on fees. That is saying the "unwelcome strangers in this community will pay". Those "unwelcome strangers" are our kids, teachers, and others who work in this community. She said the Task Force did an excellent job. She referred to Policy 6 which indicates affordable housing is to be considered an amenity for purposes of new housing and can develop above the midpoint. We should "encourage" rather than guarantee. Fee waivers should be granted for secondary units. She was not opposed to looking at a redevelopment district. As to Program 19.2 - review low income housing annually to reflect tree cost of providing housing, she questioned how land value would drive that. She had a problem with reduced parking standards for downtown. We need another way to encourage residential downtown. Should also thought we should give preference for a person who works here. She supported the comments of Ms. Dennis. We need to review alternatives. She had a problem with ABAG numbers driving this. She supported maintaining the 29,000 housing unit cap. Mr. Campbell echoed the comments of Mr. Sullivan about his frustration of having to approve homes for those in upper incomes. The City needs to provide housing for those of moderate and low income. We need to provide as many housing opportunities as possible. Ms. Steiner had asked what is the point of going through all this if it will not get Council approval. He agreed Council is elected to make tough decisions and those decisions should benefit the whole community. The decision could upset some members of the community and may lead to a referendum, but at least the Council is making a decision and is moving in a direction to benefit Pleasanton City Council Joint Meeting Minutes 14 11/15/01