CCMIN040406 - Laserfiche WebLink

projects. She asked staff if there is any other City-owned land where the City could work with a nonprofit organization or look at increasing density for additional housing. Mr. Bocian said he was not aware of any. Mr. Thorne did not disagree with any of the comments. He believed the opportunities for meeting RHND requirements as provided by staff were acceptable. He wanted to include a closer review of the fee structure. He asked staff to compile a matrix that would compare how Pleasanton compares to other cities. He wanted Council to consider simplifying the process that takes the cost out of the projects for builders. He believed Council should move forward with zoning properties high density as mentioned this evening. Because the City is running out of time, Mr. Sullivan said Council has some limitations pertaining to the housing cap. He believed Council would miss some important opportunities to achieve some of these goals and objectives because it is actively working through a general plan update where it is trying to make preliminary decisions on land use. He believed the intention on the part of the Council that it wants to try and achieve some significant affordability with what is remaining is missing. If Council has this intention, he believed a plan was necessary which could work in parallel with the General Plan update to include ideas either for new construction, conversion or existing stock that could be brought into some level of affordability. Mr. Fialho said staff would present to Council a blueprint that would allow it to meet some of the regional fair share housing requirements. He recalled that Mr. Sullivan's earlier comment was regarding a more comprehensive plan to deal with affordable housing, which staff could prepare. He was uncertain how he could dovetail this exercise into the General Plan process or run concurrent with it because Council is reaching a critical point to make some important decisions on how it would allocate these units. Mr. Sullivan did not want the City to lose this opportunity. Part of the puzzle that is missing, which will need to be included in the plan, is how the City will spend the Lower Income Housing Fee and $17 million dollars to build out, which could provide the City a significant amount to work with from a leveraging standpoint. Mayor Hosterman had an interest in exploring the buy down opportunities for the existing market or low-income rental units. Based upon Mr. O'Callaghan's comments, she was interested in having staff put together a simple model taking a piece of property that was located in an area sensitive to the Circulation Element and see what kind of impacts it would have on circulation for a more high-density project with an affordability component of approximately 100 units to it. She was also interested in learning how much it would take to allocate funding from the Lower Income Housing Fund to offset the developer fees. She was interested in the possibility of reserving a certain number of units for the future for another Council to make this determination. She was supportive of the opportunities mentioned to meet the State requirements, but pointed out that the State requirements for affordable housing might change within the several years. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Brozosky, Mr. Bocian said staff is not predicting that $17 million dollars will be available towards build out for the Lower Income Housing Fee. Staff has run a model that shows what seems to be reasonable and what can be expected. The model looked at the development of single-family homes, which more typically pays fees as compared Pleasanton City Council Minutes 11 04/04/06