My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN112905
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
CCMIN112905
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:43 AM
Creation date
1/27/2006 4:13:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/29/2005
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN112905
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Ms. Pearce asked if staff had found any other places like Staples Ranch where <br />fees had been broken down in terms of looking at affordability? <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson said staff had not found any other place with a similar model. Staff <br />would continue to work with the developer to find a way to isolate the housing cost from <br />the service cost to figure how to make certain units affordable to low income residents. <br /> <br />Mr. Arkin asked if Ridge View Commons was counted against the housing cap? <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson said yes because those units are not traditional assisted living units. <br />They are independent living units. The communal dining is not part of the cost of the <br />living units and is operated by an outside source. <br /> <br />Mr. Arkin felt Ridge View looked like what is proposed for Staples Ranch and <br />should not be counted toward the housing cap. <br /> <br />Ms. Fox agreed with the staff recommendation to include the 65 units in the <br />housing cap. She also supported the rationale for not including the assisted living and <br />skilled nursing facility units. With regard to the other issues of jobslhousing balance and <br />growth management goals, she felt the remaining residential units should be the best fit <br />for the work force. Some of this should occur in the market rather than setting a list of <br />housing types in each development. She felt the economic issues should take <br />precedence with regard to the jobs/housing balance rather than government trying to <br />regulate the process. However, we should keep in mind there is a requirement for <br />affordable units in the city as well as special needs housing. The city should not overly <br />engineer how the remaining units are divided among the needs. <br /> <br />Ms. Maas concurred with Ms. Fox's comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Arkin believed the apartments for Staples should be counted the same way <br />as Ridge View Commons. Regarding growth management, he felt the process needed <br />to be updated. He felt there was very little value in going through that and there was no <br />benefit to the community. Some abbreviated process may make sense or doing it every <br />couple of years. He suggested adding a new category for green built homes to the <br />existing ones for regular and affordable units. Regarding the jobs/housing balance, <br />unless there is insurance that people live and work in the same city, trying to keep track <br />of that does not make much sense to him. He felt what made more sense was to <br />encourage the remaining units be designed to be more balanced in terms of impacts on <br />existing residents, schools, and traffic. <br /> <br />Ms. Hosterman noted the staff report lists other ways of addressing the <br />jobs/housing balance. She asked Mr. Arkin if he supported focusing on those other <br />bullet points. If so, staff could be directed to address other land use and circulation <br />policies to support those concepts. <br /> <br />Joint Workshop <br />City Council/Planning Commission <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />11/29/05 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.