PC 072600 - Laserfiche WebLink

Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, expressed concern with the proposed ordinance and noted that it commits the City of Plcasanton to a strategy which is guaranteed to assure there will never be affordable housing in Pleasanton. He stated that there are strategies that would work with the housin~ market and that this proposed ordinance is a lottery that confuses subsidized units with affordable units. He stated that by increasing the number of socialized units, other unit prices within the City are increased. He noted that the regional transportation fee could be increased with the new housing consumer mitigating its impact. He states that the staff report fails to disclose that there is a letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development to the City in regard to the housing element requesting that an inclusionary housing ordinance not be adopted. He noted that he submitted a letter dated April 10, 2000 which raised various concerns that was not included in the staffreport and he provided a copy of the letter to the Commission. Mr. MacDonald further noted that the real cost of the inclusionary units are $40,000 per unit in the case of single-family dwellings and a six percent higher rent increase. Mr. MacDonald noted that there are policies that work with the housing market including no affordable housing fee for any unit less than 1,500 square feet in size and creation of safe harbors that developers could apply to. In conclusion, Mr. MacDonald noted this proposed ordinance will make the affordable housing market worse. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Arkin, Mr. MacDonald provided clarification of his memorandum. In response to an inquiry by Vice Chairperson Sullivan, Ms. Sero noted that when the City reviewed the General Plan in 1996, one of the requirements was to send the City's housing element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). She stated that once the State reviews and comments on the housing element, their action is advisory in nature only and there are no sanctions against a City if there are negative comments from the HCD. She noted in 1996 that the HCD's direction was that inclusionary ordinances were not a preferred way to provide inclusionary housing; however, she noted there are many cities throughout California that have inclusionary ordinances similar to the one that is proposed. She stated that ifHCD does not recommend a method, that does not mean it is a legal matter in which the City can regulate and provide for affordable housing. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Arkin expressed concern with the proposed ordinance. He noted he would like to see all projects provide 15 percent of affordable housing. He noted that duets could be provided in developments and he noted he would be in favor of no exceptions to providing affordable housing in developments, unless the developer applies for a variance. He spoke in favor of moderate income homes being mixed in with market rate/high income homes in housing developments. He expressed support with Mr. MacDonald's statement that smaller units be provided for affordable housing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 26, 2000 Page 6