CCMIN111501 - Laserfiche WebLink

permits any multi-family residential uff~t adjacent to a commercial area to reflect the building heights of the nearby commercial buildings. What about the property that is on Foothill Road at Stoneridge. That is close to the mall and there are five story office buildings, but fight across the street are two story single family and multi-family units. He did not think Council would approve a five story residential unit without giving consideration to the neighbors. To guarantee building an affordable project in pans of the community and to expedite the process in such a way that it short-circuits the public hearing process is not what this community wants. We should not be afraid that it may take a little longer by going through a public process. That is moving in the wrong direction. We have inclusionary zoning and we need to enforce it and to charge high enough fees. Affordable housing should be a requirement, not an amenity. The growth management program is flexible enough to accommodate an affordable housing project. We have that ability without guaranteeing anything. He did like the word "project" applied to affordable housing. That gives a negative connotation. We need to consider the children, parks and services the children will need. When you talk about building above commercial areas, we must consider where the children will fide bicycles and play. He agreed with creating incentives, but someone has to pay for them. If we don't raise the fees, or waive fees, at some point we will pay for that with reduced services. That needs to be discussed with the community. He wanted affordable units to be dispersed throughout a development or the community. He did not want a project to be entirely low income. He was opposed to redevelopment. It was not worth the 20% that could be used for affordable housing. 100% of the redevelopment money is siphoned off other agencies, including taxes from Pleasanton and the loss from the general fund. If we want citizens to pay for affordable housing, we don't have to disguise it. One recommendation was to develop a land banking program and reserve sites for non-profit agencies. There is a big piece of property near the BART station, but that would cost the City more than we could ever create for affordable housing. The concept is great, but look at the reality. He was also concerned about takings of private property and other legal issues. These are issues that need to be considered further. He agreed with some of the comments about secondary units, but again, where is the money coming from to pay for it. The State of California projects a budget deficit of $12-14 billion next year and that will impact the City budget. There is a long way to go before adopting this recommendation and plan. We need more dialogue. We need a plan for the State that is close to the staff recommendation that reflects what we can afford to do. We should also consider sending a letter to the State saying we need more time. We need a plan we can support as a community, not one that will divide it. 5. Summary and Direction by City Council It was moved by Mayor Pico, seconded by Mr. Campbell, to direct staff to write a letter to the State asking for additional time to submit revisions to the Housing Element. He proposed that stafftake the comments from this meeting to prepare a second revision to the Housing Element for the Task Force to review and then have a full public process that is televised. Ms. Michelotti referred to Mayor Pico's comments on Policy 5, and she agreed a public process is necessary, but felt there is discretionary approval and a public process in the Policy. Pleasanton City Council Joint Meeting Minutes 16 11/15/01