CCMIN112905 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. McGovern wanted a legal review of how to set policies. She did not understand how any Council could have set a level of service D at any intersection, because everyone lives next to some intersection. Mr. Roush acknowledged that the rules with respect to that have changed over the years and staff is dealing with current regulations. He noted what past rules had been. It is not always easy to give clear answers to these questions because there are a lot of gray areas. Ms. McGovern thought she would write the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) a letter about this. She wanted to be able to set policy for this community. Mr. Roush said a number of small cities have this same kind of problem. A number of city attorneys have asked the FPPC for a rule change to address these kinds of issues with respect to small cities. Ms. McGovern then referred to the assisted living units and the housing cap. She asked herself why she would want to count the units on Staples as residential units. Some people come to the facility because they no longer want to live in and maintain a big house and yard. If one wants to reduce the number of houses on the hillside, this seems like a good place to transfer density to because it has the least impact on traffic, schools and other infrastructure. It also fills the needs for senior housing for existing Pleasanton residents who do not qualify for affordable housing. It allows people to stay in the community with their friends. She felt it was a positive idea to count the residential units towards the housing cap (not the 89 assisted and 76 skilled nursing units). She felt it allows building closer to the housing cap while still reducing impacts on the infrastructure. She agreed with the idea of reserving units for a later time for many reasons. She said the number one concern of people is the reduction of quality of life in Pleasanton. If some units are held back pending review of the infrastructure, economic vitality, schools, etc. then it would be possible to see how many more units would fit in without harming the quality of life. One could determine if there was a need for an additional type of housing to meet a quality of life issue. She wanted to make certain the infrastructure keeps up with the housing and jobs. She did not want to rush to build out and felt a review of growth management should be done to allow slower growth rather than faster. She did not think the jobs/housing balance could ever be achieved. Commerciallretail/office development should not be reduced because it is vital to the economic stability of the community. She believed future housing developments should include some condition to provide priority to those who live or work in Pleasanton and felt that could improve the jobs/housing balance. She commented that the land and number of units in a development dictate the size of homes. However, she felt Council can encourage affordable units by design to provide housing for young families. Pleasanton is weak in that regard. She referred to increasing the density in the downtown area so more units can be built and did not think that had been addressed. In her two years on Council she has heard many different kinds of affordability, such as second units, affordable by design, workforce housing, etc. None of them seem to count toward the ABAG goals. Joint Workshop City Council/Planning Commission 17 11/29/05