CCMIN031902 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Pico said the City does want to strive to achieve the best it can, but one must recognize there are other constraints and limits that cannot be ignored, especially the infrastructure and financial impacts. Ms. Michelotti questioned the inclusion of the HBA language regarding the time frame and asked if that made the Program better or worse. Mr. Iserson said it adds a time line to the program, but staff would be doing that anyway because State law requires quantified objectives, such as when, who, how, etc.. The ultimate Housing Element will have that for every program. It is implied that the City would strive to meet the June 30, 2006 deadline because that is how ABAG has defined it. The key part is to "strive". Ms. Dennis referred to Policy 7. She liked the staff recommendation regarding multi- family housing and increasing the percentage for inclusionary units, because that is a lot easier to do in a rental development. She felt that was a lot clearer in Policy 7 before it was amended by the HBA. The original Policy supports the idea that density is an opportunity to provide affordability and inclusionary zoning. Her concern was that "at any density" would allow density below the mid-point and she did not believe there was any reason to do that. Mr. Iserson said staffagreed the original language would be better. Mr. Campbell asked if it was customary for the Home Builders Association to send recommendations to cities when Housing Elements are updated? Mr. Iserson said HBA is a representative of local home builders and is a lobbying group for builders. It routinely follows the housing elements of various communities and sometimes even get involved in individual projects. Mr. Campbell felt their recommendations were slanted towards the interests of builders and he felt it was important for staff to protect Pleasanton's interests. He referred to the HBA recommendation for Program 32.1 and he wanted to keep Pleasanton's figures and not increase them per the HBA suggestion. Mr. Iserson said staff's recommendation was to keep the current allocation of 650. Ms. Dennis felt staff had done a good job of balancing by adding flexibility to meet the housing goals and allowing Council to encourage exceptional projects for review on a case-by- case basis and to allow going over the growth management limit in a specific year. Ms. Michelotti referred to the policy of disbursing residential development throughout the community and asked if that precluded approval of a mixed-use development with both multi-family and single family units with more apartment units. Pleasanton City Council 17 03/19/02 Minutes