PC 012203 - Laserfiche WebLink

responses may change that status. Mr. Iserson was not sure how recent issues that have been raised would Further intluence the State's decision. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin, Mr_ Iserson did not believe that Livermore or Dublin's Housing Elements had been certified yet Commissioner Sedlak inquired whether the State had given examples of cities similar to Pleasanton in shape, form, and constraints that had successfully completed the Housing Element to the State's satisfaction. Mr. Iserson replied that he had not received that information in that context, but that examples for individual topics and issues had been brought to his attention. He did not believe that there was a closely comparable city to Pleasanton. He was not aware of the number of cities that were in compliance, and added that the Housing Element process was implemented in phases throughout the State. However, most cities in the Bay Area still have not had their housing elements certifed. Chairperson Arkin inquired whether the Housing Element addressed smaller affordable housing for seniors. Mr. Iserson advised that the Housing Element contained policies encouraging production of moderate income housing, as well as producing smaller units that would be moderate by market rates. Chairperson Arkin inquired whether a business tax or hotel tax could he levied to raise funds to subsidize affordable housing. Ms. Nerland replied that any tax would need to come before the voters, and that an impact fee may be approved by the Council following a study of market rate housing and the coruiection to housing production in general. She noted that a nexus must be shown to implement the increased impact fee. A discussion of an impact fee and its effect on other classes of housing ensued. Commissioner Sullivan noted that page 65, Policy 6 stated- "Affordable housing shall be an amenity for purposes of developing new housing at a density above the mid-point of the General Plan." With regard to the words "shall be," he inquired whether City Council had discretion in applying that language. Mr_ Iserson noted that a policy encouraging affordable housing as an amenity was approved by the City Council in 2001. When the document was sent to the State, they said the language was not strong enough, and that it must do more than consider affordable housing an amenity. He believed that if the original wording was presented to the State, they may see it as a reason to not certify. Commissioner Sullivan noted that the new language on page 69, Program 13.6 stated, "A priority will be placed on projects that provide the largest number of units at the greatest level of affordability _" In response to his inquiry, Mr. Iserson confirmed that the priority referred to project approval, growth management, and other incentives for projects that will __ do the most to provide affordable housing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 22, 2003 Page 17