PC 021302 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Roberts stated that as a member of the Housing Element Task Force most of her r- suggestions have either been thrown out or discussed. She asked what the inclusionary housing ordinance requires for the percentage of 10w- and very-low housing in each development. Mr. Iserson advised that he believes that it is 15%. Commissioner Roberts stated that 15% does not bother her, but that 25% affordable to low- and very-low does bother her a bit. She noted that if moderate was included in the 25% she would not have such a problem. She noted that this is more than what is required in the ordinance. Commissioner Roberts stated that she is happy with the changes in the language. She stated that she has believed all along that this is a document that lets the City do things, and is written as a part of the General Plan and not written like the zoning ordinance. She stated that she feels there are some excellent suggestions included in document, such as the suggestion to monitor second units to see if they are being used for rentals, so that the number of rental units can be determined. She advised that while she understands the argument and the problem with dispersing affordable units and tax credits, she wants to maintain the provision for dispersing affordable units, as it is important for the people who live in these communities and it is worth doing. Commissioner Kameny stated that he agrees with Commissioner Arkin that the inclusion of a senior policy is very important and he supports that recommendation. r- Commissioner Sullivan thanked Mr. Paxson and the rest of the Task Force for their work. He stated that he believes that the Task Force tried to think creatively and came up with some good ideas. He noted that there is a balance that must be achieved between all of the general plan elements. Commissioner Sullivan commented that he feels this version of the document is much better than what they reviewed the last time and it is something that the community can accept. He noted that he felt the previous policy took away some of the discretionary approval. Commissioner Sullivan made the following comments: . Policy 5 - include language that reads: "and consistent with the existing neighborhood character. " . Policy 9 - include language that reads: "for example, adjacent to transit." . Policy 16 - the word "Strive" be softened, as he feels this acknowledges the legitimacy of ABAG's numbers, and he has a problem with how those numbers are developed. . Goal 10 - Commissioner Sullivan expressed concern about the wording "Remove unnecessary governmental constraints." . Program 21.1 states that the lower-income housing fee is to reviewed annually. Commissioner Sullivan noted that he thought it was the intention to do this right away. (Mr. Iserson noted that he thinks it would be the intent to do it now and review it annually. Ms. Seto advised that she understands that Steven Bocian and Scott Erickson are currently reviewing the fee.) . Policy 31 - add "environmental constraints" after "the availability of infrastructure." . Program 32.1 - Commissioner Sullivan questioned the number 650, noting that he thought the Growth Management Ordinance allowed for 350 units per year. (Mr. Iserson stated that the Ordinance does have specific numbers per year, but it is tied back to the General ,,-- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 13, 2002 Page 15