CCMIN040406 - Laserfiche WebLink

Christine Steiner, a Pleasanton resident, thanked Council for its support over the years and reiterated that the bottom line is land and zoning. When financing is available from the State, the City needs to be ready. Zoning is critical and sets the tone for a developer who wants to come into Pleasanton who is serious. She concurred with Mr. O'Callaghan's comments. She believed the Housing Fund should always be used for leverage and not something that is used for one project. She also believed Council needed to look at the few units available because it is critical at this juncture as to how these units will be developed. It is imperative for Council to look at workforce housing and other needs as suggested by Ms. Dennis. With the General Plan update, she believed it was an appropriate time for Council to zone sufficient land for affordable rental housing which is a necessary step in meeting the City's affordable housing objectives and then sit back and hold the remaining buildable units until Council could come up with a multi- pronged plan. A letter was presented to Council on behalf of Dolores Bengston, a Pleasanton resident who expressed her concern about the City's lack of progress in meeting its RHND goals. She was hopeful that Council would take decisive action this evening to ensure that Pleasanton preserves its ability to comply with the California fair share housing law. Beyond the measures outlined in the staff report, Council should immediately reserve at least 800 units under the Housing Cap for very-low income housing. Until these numbers are reserved, Council should place a moratorium on processing new market rate housing proposals. This will prevent the inclusionary zoning rates from having to exceed 50% and will preserve the potential for the mixed income development proposals which the community prefers. Mayor Hosterman closed the public comments. Mr. Fialho said it would helpful for staff to get a sense from Council on the opportunities identified on pages five and six of the staff report. He noted that staff would be presenting to Council at its joint workshop on April 11, various options for review and consideration including a model that would allow for disbursed development throughout the City, Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) , concentrated development, and a land use plan that would allow the City to meet some of the affordable housing mandates, including how that might look and how that might look in terms of a disbursed environment versus a concentrated or TOD environment. Mr. Brozosky pointed out that Council and the community have not had the opportunity to discuss how much of the remaining low-income housing would be for workforce or family housing versus senior housing. He also pointed out that the City does not make money on the development fees and covers the actual increased cost of infrastructure today. If the development fees were reduced, it would be a subsidy and it would need to come from someplace else, such as the General Fund. Ms. McGovern said it was difficult for her to have a plan implemented until she had reviewed the Condominium Conversion ordinance and the City's Lower Income Housing Fee ordinance. She wanted to gain an understanding about the amount of affordable housing that is available for young families. She wanted Council to break its strategy by looking at current and existing units within the City and how can these be used to meet the affordable needs. Council should also consider new housing stock that is below the housing cap and discuss a solution for these remaining units. She was interested in looking at increasing the density in the downtown and encouraging additional second units. She believed Council should review and consider the projects that staff outlined on pages five and six of the staff report. She was also interested in looking at Kottinger Place and Pleasanton Gardens to see what could be done with these Pleasanton City Council Minutes 10 04/04/06