These minutes are considered draft in nature and will not be official until adopted by the City council

Deputy Dawn

Informations

• Publié par: Musong
• Nombre de lectures: 27
• Langue: English

Extrait

 

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLEASANTON CITY COUNCIL April 4, 2006

          6:45 P.M. CLOSED SESSION    Conference (status update) with legal counsel concerning claims of the FERMA Corporation – Callippe Preserve Golf Course. 1. CALL TO ORDER   Mayor Hosterman called the regular meeting of the City Council to order at 7:05 p.m. Councilmember McGovern led the assembly in the pledge of allegiance.   Ms. McGovern mentioned the Community Character trait for the month is respect. She reminded the community that April 2006 is “Earthquake Preparedness” month and the centennial of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The City is working with neighboring Tri- Valley cities and has developed a regional emergency preparedness plan. A part of this plan is that each resident have his or her own earthquake preparedness kit. Information about the kit is available at www.redcross.org . She announced the following upcoming events: Pleasanton Downtown Association Spring Preview Customer Appreciation Days, April 8 and 9 from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; (2) Amador Theater’s production of “Snow Flake,” to be featured April 8, 2006; (3) Third Annual Electronic Waste Day, April 8, 2006 from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Operations Service Center, 333 Busch Road; and (4) Joint Council/Planning Commission General Plan Land Use Workshop, April 11, 2006 beginning at 6:30 p.m.   2. ROLL CALL   City Clerk Dawn Abrahamson called the roll, which was recorded as follows: Councilmembers present were Steve Brozosky, Cindy McGovern, Matt Sullivan, Jerry Thorne, and Mayor Hosterman. Staff members present were: Nelson Fialho, City Manager; Michael Roush, City Attorney; Steven Bocian, Assistant City Manager; Jerry Iserson, Director of Planning and Community Development; and Jim Wolfe, Director of Parks and Community Services.   3. AGENDA AMENDMENTS   Nelson Fialho, City Manager, announced agenda items 4j, 4m, 6c, and 6d were continued by staff to April 18, 2006.       Pleasanton City Council Minutes 1

04/04/06  

4. CONSENT CALENDAR     Mr. Sullivan referred to agenda item 4g and noted that he would be unavailable to serve as the City’s alternate to the Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) Spring General Assembly.    Ms. McGovern suggested Councilmember Brozosky and herself be appointed as alternates to the ABAG Spring General Assembly in the event Councilmember Thorne, the City’s voting delegate, was unable to attend.    Michael Roush, City Attorney, suggested Council give Mayor Hosterman the ability to appoint a councilmember in the event Mr. Thorne was unavailable to vote.   It was moved by Ms. McGovern, seconded by Mr. Thorne, that the following actions under the Consent Calendar be taken with a correction to the last paragraph on page 17 of the March 21, 2006 Council minutes to reflect that Mr. Brozosky requested staff to explore applying for State recycling grants to offset the cost of e-waste day:     a. Approved minutes of the 03/21/06 as amended and the minutes of the 02/28/06 joint workshop.   b. Actions of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission. (IR 06:016)   There was no action taken or required on this item.   c. Approved monthly disbursements and investment report for February 2006. (SR 06:091)   d. Proclaimed April 2006 as “National Poetry Month” in the City of Pleasanton.   e. Proclaimed April 2-8, 2006 as “Week of the Young Child” in the City of Pleasanton.   f. Adopted Resolution 06-018, a resolution ratifying the Mayor’s appointments to various City Commissions and Committees. (SR 06:092)   g. Designated Councilmember Jerry Thorne as the voting delegate to the Association of Bay Area Governments Spring General Assembly and authorized Mayor Hosterman the ability to appoint an alternate in the event Mr. Thorne was unavailable to vote. (SR 06:093)     h. Adopted Resolution 06-019, a resolution vacating and quitclaiming the excess Vineyard Avenue right-of-way adjacent to Tract 7399, Silver Oaks Estates. (Berlogar property). (SR 06:056)     i. Adopted Resolution 06-020, a resolution declaring that weeds, dirt, rubbish, and refuse upon or in front of certain described properties within the City of Pleasanton constitute public nuisances and that they be abated, and setting a public hearing regarding the 2006 Weed Abatement Program. (SR 06:068)     j. Agreement between the City of Pleasanton and All City Management Services for school crossing guard services. (SR 06:094)   This item was continued to April 18, 2006.     Pleasanton City Council Minutes

2

04/04/06

  k. Reviewed bids and awarded a contract to Vista Universal Inc. for the streetlight and pathway light maintenance project. (SR 06:098)   l. Adopted Ordinance 1934, an ordinance amending the Pleasanton Municipal Code Chapter 17.50 incorporating “green building measures” for new residential development projects.   m. Approval of professional services agreement with EIP Associates for preparation of an environmental impact report for the Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan Amendments/Staples Ranch project. (SR 06:101)      This item was continued to April 18, 2006.   The roll call vote was taken as follows: AYES: Councilmembers – Brozosky, McGovern, Sullivan, Thorne, and Mayor Hosterman NOES:   None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: Councilmember McGovern from the approval of the 03/21/06 Council minutes (agenda item 4a)   5. MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC   Presentation regarding Week of the Young Child.     There were no public speakers.   6. PUBLIC HEARINGS & OTHER MATTERS   6a Review of affordable housing needs and issues (SR 06:087)    Steven Bocian, Assistant City Manager, presented the staff report.    Mayor Hosterman noted this item pertains to State affordable housing numbers that the State requires regions to provide and for the City of Pleasanton, it is approximately over 5,000 units which would take the City beyond its General Plan build out numbers. She asked staff to explain the State decision-making process and key elements related to affordable housing.    Mr. Bocian said there is State legislation that requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to work with local regional agencies or COGS, which for the Bay Area is the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). ABAG is responsible for developing numbers for new housing in which it is assured there is adequate and affordable housing for all in the state.    Mayor Hosterman pointed out that the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) is the organization that determines the number of homes that the State of California needs to grow and in turn, sends these numbers to the local COGS which for Alameda County is ABAG.     Pleasanton City Council Minutes

3

04/04/06

The determination is made as to which cities or counties will be responsible for the percentage of that number.    Mr. Bocian said ABAG is currently working on affordable housing numbers that it expects to have in place by 2008.    Mayor Hosterman noted that it was important for all of the different levels that filter down to come within the CEQA process with the exception of RHND. There has been discussion within the Regional Planning Committee of not foisting numbers on agencies but actual geographical areas.    Mr. Sullivan pointed out that affordable housing goals are included in the City’s Housing Element. The City is currently going through a General Plan update process. One of the missing pieces is a focused plan on how to achieve and work towards achieving some of these goals. He asked if there was a way to have a more focused affordable housing plan in parallel with the General Plan update process so that as Council considers different land uses, it can see opportunities and some of the strategies outlined which could be plugged into this process.    Mr. Fialho noted that the Housing Element outlines a blueprint for accomplishing the arena numbers for affordable housing. He believed Mr. Sullivan’s issue was broader in nature in terms of policy and programs. The City does not have an affordable housing plan and short of the Housing Element of the General Plan, Council could focus on this in the future if it wanted to make this a priority.    Mr. Sullivan said the future is now. He believed now was the time to have these types of discussions. He was interested in undertaking this process in parallel with the General Plan update.    Mr. Fialho cautioned Council not to slow down the General Plan process.    Mr. Roush pointed out that in order for the City to obtain its certification it needs to rezone enough property to accommodate a certain number of units as outlined in the staff report. Before the City could rezone property, it would need to general plan change some parcels in order to accommodate the rezoning which will work in tandem to provide affordable housing opportunities. He believed the process as mentioned by Mr. Sullivan would occur in parallel with the General Plan update.    Mr. Sullivan asked what the rezoning of property, as described in the Housing Element, did to the discretionary review process for these projects?    Mr. Roush said it did not change the review process.    Mr. Thorne asked how much at-risk housing was available in Pleasanton?    Mr. Bocian said approximately 150 units which are located at Civic Square and Valley Plaza II.  With the merger of Kottinger Place and Pleasanton Gardens, Mr. Thorne asked if there is s a possibility of adding very-low income units?    Mr. Bocian said the focus of the Task Force is to add units.     Pleasanton City Council Minutes

4

04/04/06

   Mr. Thorne asked staff to explain the difference between the 1,268 units and the note at the bottom of page three of the staff report that indicated the total number of unmet units is 1,159 units.    Mr. Bocian referred to the power point presentation and pointed out 2,714 units exceeded the regional amount. In essence, the actual number of units is less than that amount. The RHND target is 5,059 housing units.    Mr. Thorne asked for the total amount of available funding in the Low-Income Housing Fund?    Mr. Bocian said approximately $7 million dollars was available and through build out, approximately $17 million dollars.    Mr. Brozosky inquired about the status of the report for the use of the Low-Income Housing Fee.    Mr. Bocian said the Housing Commission has reviewed this report.    Mr. Fialho said this report would be presented to Council either in April or May.    Mr. Brozosky asked if ABAG allowed cities to buy down existing units.    Mr. Bocian said yes. It was his understanding that the City would be allowed to convert existing market-rate units to affordable units and have them count as affordable units with restrictions towards meeting the regional need. Historically, the City has been able to have modern income rental units met without restriction, but low and very-low income requirement restrictions.    Mr. Brozosky asked if it was possible to build low or very-low income market rate units without a subsidy.    Mr. Bocian was not certain that a subsidy was needed. There are restrictions in terms of how these units are rented. The units are restricted because they are below market-rate. In the past, there have been developments in the City that the City has not contributed to but the developments have provided low-income units.    Mr. Brozosky did not believe a unit by itself could not be low or very-low income without some type of subsidy.    Mr. Bocian said potentially, a developer could elect to provide affordable units on Site A because it would generate a certain amount of income on Site B. A developer could transfer profits from Site B to Site A. Not withstanding those unique situations, almost all affordable housing has some type of State financing or subsidy from a City that makes it successful.    Mr. Brozosky inquired about the definition of high density as outlined in the General Plan.       Pleasanton City Council Minutes

5

04/04/06

 Mr. Bocian said the definition of high density as outlined in the General Plan is considered over eight units to the acre.    Mr. Brozosky noted that it was mentioned ABAG could change the way in which it does regional allocations. He asked if the City could assume these changes would be made.    Mr. Fialho said something would happen but staff has not formulated the assumption. There is some reform but staff is uncertain about the impact for localities.    Mr. Brozosky inquired about ABAG’s requirement for below market rate restricted units.    Mr. Bocian said there was no requirement.    Mr. Brozosky asked if subsidy vouchers could be utilized to meet regional needs?    Mr. Bocian did not believe subsidy vouchers counted as affordable units.    Mr. Brozosky asked if ABAG allowed secondary units to be counted towards the regional need?    Mr. Bocian said only if the secondary units are restricted.    Mr. Brozosky believed the City could work with the variable of using secondary units for new developments towards the regional housing needs.    Mr. Fialho said secondary units that would be counted towards the regional housing needs would not only be for new developments but existing developments. If existing property owners were willing to enter into a restricted agreement with the City, it would count towards the City’s arena obligations. The City currently does not have a process for using secondary units that would count towards the regional housing needs for new and existing developments. The State and ABAG are concerned with having more units on the ground or converting existing market rate stock into affordable units. The City could either do this on its own or partner with a non-profit organization to convert secondary units to restricted units, or convert either all or a portion of existing apartment complexes to meet the regional needs.    Ms. McGovern believed Council should look at using separate strategies. One strategy would be for existing units that are currently within the City and what could be done to increase acquisition and provide more without building, which would be less expensive in the long run than supporting the construction of new buildings.    Mr. Bocian did not know if it would be less expensive as each development is unique. He believed having a two-prong strategy looking at existing and new units made sense.    Ms. McGovern believed using the two separate strategies would make the vision more clear. With the additional secondary units discussed and the possibility of trying to form a relationship with a property owner to make the units affordable, she asked if it generated a significant amount of paperwork that the property owners would have to contend with.    Mr. Bocian said there would be some paperwork involved similar to the program for apartment complexes in the City. He believed this process could be streamlined.     Pleasanton City Council Minutes

6

04/04/06

   Ms. McGovern asked if the City had a plan to maintain the 150 at-risk units discussed earlier?    Mr. Bocian said staff formulated a plan and made an attempt and met with the owners of a number of developments that were reaching the end of its affordable term. Staff was unsuccessful in its attempts as property owners view these units as an opportunity to make money for profit. The property owners strongly believed they met their obligation to the City. Staff provided a number of incentives but there was no interest. He believed there was a chance the City would lose the 150 at-risk units. Staff has been successful with property owners that want to refinance a project and are willing to work with the City to gain tax-exempt bonds.    Ms. McGovern believed it would be appropriate to encourage the building of secondary units in the City’s new housing construction. She inquired about the possibility of increasing the density in the downtown to add additional units and believed it would be appropriate for consideration. She asked staff if the total reserved units for the Kottinger Place development that is focused on producing additional low and very-low income units could be up to 190 units.    Mr. Bocian said yes.    Ms. McGovern inquired about the possibility of additional federal or state legislation that would provide additional funding for affordable housing.    Mr. Bocian said he was not aware of any current state or federal legislation that would provide any additional funding for affordable housing.    Ms. McGovern was pleased to hear that ABAG is willing to work with cities and look at housing numbers that are more consistent with development potential and the economics of the local housing market. She asked if the City had played a role in these discussions?    Mr. Fialho said the City has been invited to a number of meetings in which Mr. Thorne and Mayor Hosterman have represented the City at the ABAG Regional Planning Committee. The Committee is not close to formulating a recommendation for the region.    Mayor Hosterman invited public comments.    Bill Jorgensen, a member of Citizens for A Caring Community, represented Pat Belding, Chair of Citizens for A Caring Community, and on her behalf presented a letter to Council. She concurred with the staff report and its recommendations for action but did not believe it went far enough. While Pleasanton has seen recent quality achievements in senior housing, the City needs a greater quantity of housing for the lower income workers who need to live in Pleasanton if the City is to achieve the minimum standard required by State law. There is clearly a much greater proportion of housing for growing numbers of workers who are employed at lower wages by Pleasanton’s businesses. Citizens for a Caring Community has been asking Council to take steps to meet Pleasanton’s regional fair share housing for five years. To accomplish this, the City needs to set aside at least 700 to 800 units for housing for very low- income workers and additional units for low and possibly moderate-income workers. Let this reservation of critical units be the first action step of the Council in a plan for affordable housing for Pleasanton’s very-low income citizens. And let the second step be the rezoning of the 40     Pleasanton City Council Minutes

7

04/04/06

acres for this housing, which has been needed for so long. She urged Council to plan carefully for the highest priority remaining units under the Cap. She believed waiting for the completion of the General Plan revision was not necessary or desirable.    Jack Dove, a Pleasanton resident, pointed out the overall success of the Ridge View Commons facility and the large number of residents over the age of 90 who are living independently. In addressing the affordable housing needs and issues in Pleasanton, he believed senior housing was a need and urged Council to make a distinction between the assisted living facilities in the community. Each one is different and fulfills a need and has added to the overall housing stock. In looking at the cost of the new assisted living facility, he did not believe a Kottinger Place, Pleasanton Gardens or Ridge View Commons resident would be able to afford to reside at the new assisted living facility even with the lower rental rates offered. The best alternative is community living in a place like Ridge View Commons. He urged Council to set aside at least 700 to 800 units for senior housing and implement plans to fulfill this goal.    Cynthia Morse, a Livermore resident, urged Council to put the puzzle together and have as its ultimate goal very-low income housing. To help with affordable housing, a member of the Economic Vitality Committee suggested at the February 28 joint Council workshop that a living wage be considered. She noted that a housing wage, which would be the amount of money that a person needs to make per hour to afford the average two-bedroom apartment in this area, is between $25 to $26 per hour, which is considered moderate income. Very-low income people are those who are employed in retail, offices, small and large businesses in the area, those who are employed at Hacienda Business Park and Stoneridge, people who provide childcare and domestic work, and people who are employed in the hospitality industry. She encouraged Council to use all resources and concentrate on the very-low income housing that needs to be made available in Pleasanton and the remainder of the Tri-Valley region.    Becky Dennis, a Pleasanton resident, addressed Council from the perspective of a former Councilmember who wrestled with these problems, both growth and management of growth. She recalled that the preamble in the resolution to place the housing cap and urban growth boundary on the ballot specifically stated the reasons why this was being implemented as a planning tool to meet the City’s State housing obligations. She referred to Program 19.1 and the issue of zoning land that is called for in this program, which is important for Pleasanton to meet its housing goals. If Council were to encourage densities that are capable of supporting affordability, particularly at the low and very-low income level, it needs to zone land because without zoning land, the future and the use of the land is uncertain in the community. Council needs to make this commitment up front so that the community can deal with the design of the program. Council needs to create incentives for non-profit developers to come to Pleasanton and without zoned land it is an expensive process for developers. When pulling back on density that might be proposed for a piece of land, such as SilverStone that has high density zoning, Council needs to consider the previous proposal by a non-profit developer for senior housing because it contained more affordable units. The SilverStone development while it is welcome as workforce housing and some level of affordability that complies to the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, contributed to the deficit in the very-low income area because it used up units under the housing cap. As the staff report indicated, 50 percent of every development would have affordable housing for low and very-low income families. All projects that Council approves that do not meet this standard make it harder for the City to meet its regional housing numbers. She recalled the struggle the City had in its most recent negotiations with ABAG to decrease the number of affordable housing units. She noted that Pleasanton is a job-centered city and when affordable housing numbers are considered this will always be taken into     Pleasanton City Council Minutes

8

04/04/06

consideration which will raise the City’s level of responsibility. Compared to other cities, Pleasanton is in a better financial position, which will not allow the City to plead poverty in terms of its ability to build these units. She suggested that Council take bolder actions beyond what is suggested in the staff report. She did not believe Council should be approving any additional market rate residential developments until it sorted this out because everything Council approves is making it more difficult to solve the problem. She also suggested that Council rezone the land and consider reserving a substantial number of units based upon the City’s future needs.    Charles Clark, a Pleasanton resident, said he was interested in purchasing the Greenbriar Apartment complex. He believed the property has bond financing which did not allow for any secondary financing nor did it allow for underwriting of additional financing. As a result of this, the property could not sell. He noted that he was the owner of Pleasanton Manor, which falls in between the low and very-low income and needs a significant amount of improvements. He pointed out that the City could not have people living in Pleasanton in horrible conditions and there should be some middle ground. If Council was considering new development as a means to address affordable housing, he believed mixed use should be considered. The retail or business component of a development could help fund low or very-low income housing as part of this type of project. He presented a letter to Council from Marshall Reddick, a real estate network, who was willing to buy every unit at Pleasanton Manor for individual investors who will then rent to people in the area but be individually owned as condominium units.    Maurine Behrend, Director of the Tri-Valley Interface Poverty Forum, reported that the Forum held a Housing Conference in 2001 and 125 attendees were trained to appear at their respective City Council and Planning Commission meetings to request additional affordable housing. Last year in response to the needs that the Forum had determined, it issued a housing report. Based upon the work of the 125 advocates, 248 people were identified as moving into new low and very-low income affordable housing in the Tri-Valley. This year, 903 people have been identified as moving into low and very-low income units. The RHND numbers are based upon need mainly from two areas: people are living longer and localities need to accommodate the fact that there will be more senior citizens and secondly, cities such as Pleasanton have business parks which attract low-income workers. In the Forum’s efforts with the Business Council Housing Committee, it has tried to put a face on the low-income workers. When the Forum prepared its housing report last year, the City of Pleasanton came in last of all of the five Tri-Valley cities meeting only 3 percent of its regional housing needs for low-income workers. She pointed out that it is real people who the City will be helping when it tries meet the affordable housing needs.    Michael O’Callaghan, a Pleasanton resident, mentioned that in the early 80’s, he built and developed two affordable housing projects, one of which he retained for ownership and rented out with no subsidy using market rate financing. In the long run, subsidies of any kind and the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance will catch up with the City and only solve the problem temporarily. He encouraged Council to zone properties high density, back off on the development fees and expedite the process of getting plans and projects approved which will eliminate 25 to 40 percent of the cost of a project. He pointed out that development fees for some projects are approaching and exceeding the cost of the finished product. He suggested gathering the support of this community by proposing a tax initiative to support affordable housing rather than having the developer defer the cost of a low-income unit into the high- income unit.       Pleasanton City Council Minutes

9

04/04/06

 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

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