CCMIN111501 - Laserfiche WebLink

Valley is seriously out of match in this regard. A survey was done of the General Plans of five Tri-Vailey cities and the results indicated that at build out there would 1.6 jobs for every person in the Th-Valley and in Pleasanton there will be 2.1 jobs for every employed resident. That is 90,000 jobs for 49,000 employed residents. He believed Pleasanton was falling into the same situation that affected Silicon Valley and there could be serious repercussions on the quality of life. It means more than traffic congestion as people drive to and from the area because housing is not available in the area. It is bad for the environment, bad for families, and is bad for businesses because mobility of goods and services will be reduced. It is dumb growth. It fails to address the question of equity. Measure D dictates that growth must occur within the cities, effectively putting more than 70% of the land within the Tri-Valley off limits for development. Pleasanton has an urban growth boundary as it should. Growth directed towards cities is reasonable approach and that is what you are doing. However in urbanized areas of cities, you must think smarter, especially with jobs/housing match. He felt the Task Force report can solve the problems of Pleasanton and asked for support of the report. Ms. Dennis felt the ABAG requirements for moderate housing levels does not address the jobs/housing match issues in Pleasanton. She pointed out that Measure D also suggests that the population of Alameda County is going to embrace those numbers as the standard for what we need to accomplish for housing. Mr. Chapman felt we should get away from the technicalities and start thinking about what we need and how to be a more economically diverse society. There is not a diverse society in Pleasanton because people can't afford to live here. Diversity is a plus for a community. He believed the numbers in the Housing Element recommendations are very modest considering the depth of the problem in Pleasanton. Mayor Pico believed one can make numbers say anything you want. At the same time the Vision 2010 was doing its survey, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council was doing a study and it said Pleasanton's jobs/housing balance was one to one. The Th-Valley was projected at build out to be 1.12 to one. There are a lot of statistics and reports out there. He did feel the need is great for affordable housing and we should do what we can to solve the problem. Carole Varela, 3858 Mohr Avenue, related her family's experience in working to afford a home here. They would have liked to have lived close to her husband's job, but have not been able to do that. He has commuted for 40 years. She said they budgeted and saved to buy their first home. Things are no different today. She referred to previous remarks about Union City, but said there is no comparison to Pleasanton. Many people want to come to Pleasanton because of the quality of life here. Many people work very hard to get here. She agreed there should be affordable housing, but she did not think the Housing Element Task Force recommendations will solve the problems. She had concerns about the lack of public input. There have been several referendums of new development for various reasons. She believed that if the City raised the in lieu fee, the developers would raise the price of the homes. Council should look at the proposal more. She did not want the affordable housing to be located near the airport because is was unsafe. We should work with developers to put affordable units throughout the City in various neighborhoods. We need more mother-in-law units to be rentals. She wanted Council to delay Pleasanton City Council Joint Meeting Minutes 8 11/15/01