CCMIN112905 - Laserfiche WebLink

balance, to recruit and retain quality businesses while providing a mix of affordable housing that meets the community's needs. Ms. McGovern did not think the phrase "workforce housing" made sense. Every house with a working resident is "workforce housing". She did not think a development like Oak Grove could be required to have small houses. Mr. Thorne indicated there is developable acreage in the city that will not have small or affordable houses, such as the south Pleasanton hills. He wanted to make certain that was clear in the motion. Mr. Brozosky indicated these are policies for what to do with the rest of the land use and where to rezone. Once the land use is done, these are not relevant any more. He felt these were good guidelines as the process goes through the rest of the land use changes, but he did not see, once the decisions are made, how these specific things were really relevant any more. Ms. Stern said these are a guideline for the next couple of workshops to determine where the development sites would be and what those sites would look like, size of units, density, etc. Mr. Brozosky felt these were not actual policies. Ms. Stern replied that some were, such as the one about making the remaining housing under the cap a good fit. A large part of that is looking at where to put that housing, near transit, etc. A large part of that will be done over the next few work sessions and will not necessarily be translated into additional policies. Mr. Brozosky did not agree with everything on the report, but agreed they are good concepts to think about. He asked if these were concepts or exact things to be included? Ms. McGovern did not want to be tied into any particular development, such as Hacienda, and asked if that motion tied her to any development? Mr. Fialho said no. It was moved by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mayor Hosterman, to support staff's concepts as reflected on page 6 of 9 of the staff report (1. making the remaining residential potential under the cap the best for the workforce where appropriate in terms of location, affordability and type of units; 2. supporting transit improvements that would make it easier for in-commuters to take public transit to job centers in Pleasanton rather than driving; 3. economic development policies; and 4. encouraging walkable, mixed-use, activity areas) as a way to address the jobslhousing imbalance, while also recognizing that the imbalance Pleasanton City Council Special Meeting 6 11/29/05