Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Staff feels the revised site plan has greatly improved the proposals with larger setbacks and <br />additional screen landscaping. Staff recommends approval to amend the General Plan Land <br />Use designation to High Density Residential and to approval Case PUD-95-06 subject to the <br />conditions of approval. <br /> <br />Staff noted they have received communications in support of this project from Mr. Seth <br />Bland, Senior Support Services of Valley Community Health Center, all citing the need for <br />more affordable senior housing in the community. Mr. Iserson also reminded the <br />Commission that they had asked the City Council to give this project the highest priority for <br />growth management at the last hearing. <br /> <br />In response to Commissioner McGuirk, Mr. Iserson stated there are expressed percentage <br />goals for affordable housing listed in the General Plan. This project would help meet those <br />goals. Commissioner McGuirk asked if there is a benefit or a penalty if Pleasanton does nor <br />does not meet the goals. Mr. Iserson stated there is a potential for loss of state funds in the <br />future if a community has a proven track record of ignoring their responsibilities. Staff feels <br />that Pleasanton is viewed as making a good faith effort in this regard. However, this project <br />is for senior affordable housing, which the City does not have a large amount. Mr. <br />Beougher advised the state is trying to tie housing elements to state funds for housing and <br />bond issuances. The state has mandated three divisions of housing. We have met two of the <br />three categories; Pleasanton has not fulfilled very low income housing. <br /> <br />Commissioner Barker commented that she had heard that Pleasanton has received a 99% <br />rating for their housing elements. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh asked if it is legal to restrict housing by age. Mr. Beougher stated <br />federa11egislation determined age restriction to be legal. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh noted he spoke with Karey Finn, Cliff Caspersen, Michael <br />Goldsworthy, and Rich St. John. Commissioner McGuirk met with Mr. and Mrs. Finn and <br />Mr. Glanville. Chairman Lutz met with Ms. Finn. Commissioner Barker met with Mr. and <br />Mrs. Finn. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED <br /> <br />Mike Madden, 5955 Coronado Lane, Pleasanton, represented the Red Bear application for <br />the senior housing. He advised that they still agree and approve of the conditions set forth <br />by staff. They have had another informal neighborhood meeting and have adjusted the site <br />plan to incorporate the neighbors' concerns. <br /> <br />Mr. Madden also described briefly the reason for the change in rental structure. Ten percent <br />of the project is now for the very low income, 40% of the project is at the low income (60% <br />of median) and 50% of the project is at the affordable level (80% of median income). <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />November 29, 1995 <br />