CCMIN112905 - Laserfiche WebLink

meaningful were some policies suggested such as making the remaining residential potential under the cap the best fit for the workforce in terms of location, affordability, and types of units? That addresses the issues of affordability and some of the other sustainable development policies. He also supported the policy to encourage smaller homes. He wanted to explore current options before consideration of reducing the housing cap. There is Staples Ranch, Hacienda, the project in the hills and other variables to be worked on for the community. We need to see if those options work or not. They may not and fewer housing units than the housing cap could be built. He did not want to hamstring any future efforts. He supported reserving some units for the future, but he wanted flexibility in that regard as well. Steve Brozosky referred to the Staples project and said it is not an assisted living facility, but a continuing care facility. That is why he wants it for this community. A person can start living there independently and stay they as they proceed to needing skilled nursing. He agreed with Mr. Sullivan that a definition needs to be found of how many residents are independent versus assisted and determine the proportion. In the October staff report, there were 690 units apparently for independent living, 76 assisted living and 89 skilled nursing beds. Using those figures, it seems the 690 units should be counted towards the housing cap. Pleasanton doesn't treat apartments different than single-family homes in terms of the housing cap, so he did not think an apartment on Staples should be treated different than a duet. If those units are not counted towards the housing cap, he felt it would be going against the intent of the 1996 vote for the housing cap. The goal is not to see how many houses can be squeezed into the community. The cap was based on midpoint density in the 1996 General Plan. He supported keeping a reserve of 300-500 units for the future. He did not know how affordability could be included in the Staples project because of all the services included and suggested the developers pay in-lieu fees so units could be built in other locations in the city where it makes more sense. If these are counted as housing units, more in- lieu housing fees could be collected and that would be more than if the project were treated as commercial and fees were based on square footage. He would like to see that calculation. Regarding growth management, he felt it was a good thing, but the reports take a lot of staff time and are not worth much now. The reason for growth management was to make certain the infrastructure kept up with demands. That has not occurred yet as evidenced by the traffic problems. Some type of growth management is still necessary to keep that balance. Referring to the jobs/housing balance, he said many people in Pleasanton work out of their homes and that is not counted in the jobs/housing balance. He felt if the number of business licenses were reviewed for those in commercial property versus residential property, the jobs/housing balance would be very different than as appears in the staff calculations. He felt that was better than transit-oriented development. Building a bigger house with office space included is better than having to commute somewhere. He said 70% of Pleasanton residents commute out of the city. He did not think there was a chance to reach a jobs/housing balance, and it should not be pursued. People change jobs more often and many times they stay in the same home. There are two income earners in many families who work in different cities. A jobs/housing balance in a company town in the old days might have worked, but it is not relevant today. He again stated his belief that Joint Workshop City Council/Planning Commission 15 11/29/05