PC 012203 - Laserfiche WebLink

Bruce Fiedler, 251 Kottinger, wished to respond to the Commissioners' inquiry about neighboring cotrctrtunities, and advised that Dublin's Housing Element had been subtrcitted, but no answer had been received. He noted that he served on that committee, and submitted input to Pleasanton's Housing Element as well_ He noted that Dublin's Housing Element was a rather pedestrian document in comparison to the sophistication of Pleasanton's Housing Eletrient_ He cotriplitzzcnted staff on a job well done under difficult conditions. His points of contention with regard to the Housing Element related to its presuppositions about being able to implement the plans within the 2006 time framework of the document. He noted that the possible housing site parcels on page 1 2 are not currently available for housing, and there is no assurance that they would be available by 2006. He noted that some of the listed parcels were not convenient to goods, services, or transportation, and were therefore not accessible by or appropriate for persons who have low- or very-low incomes. He noted those people may not have access to personal transportation, and may hold more than one job. Mr. Fiedler believed that if Stoneridge and Las Positas are not extended, any possible housing in Staples Ranch would be accessible only by leaving the community. He did not believe that kind of segregation from the rest of the residential areas was appropriate. Even if the parcels are accessible and available, the city's current and future cost for land is very high. He estimated that undeveloped land in Pleasanton may be valued in excess of $ 1 million per acre. He believed those kinds of costs precluded affordable housing_ Mr. Fiedler did not believe that an inclusionary housing level of 30°/ was being done by any for-profit developer, but it was needed to come in under the cap_ He noted that page 50, Table IV-20, noted that l 22 of the current below-market rental units were at risk of converting to market rates by 2006_ He did not see any indication that the owners wished to forgo higher rents and greater profits, and the City was not previously successful in crcaintaining the affordability of Pleasanton Greens, now Las Ventanos. He was not aware of any plan or funding dedicated to accomplishing that goal, and believed that another 122 units must be added to the regional housing need determination For 2006_ He believed these, and other, factors made it impossible for Pleasanton to meet the goals listed in the Draft Element, and whether by intent or effect, he believed that persons of moderate, low and very-low incomes are being redlined out of Pleasanton. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts, Mr. Iserson replied that the at-risk housing was addressed in the Housing Element_ June Blanchette, 393 W. Angela, believed that the Planning Commission addressed the upper-income housing issue well, and noted that it was time to put low- and very-low income housing in the Plan. She noted that the future of Pleasanton's workers, seniors, and children was at stake, and she hoped that the G'ommission would take the high ground, acid keep 2006 in mind. Joseph Jones, 3625 Z'ouriga Drive, noted that Pleasanton has two unique governmental constraints that prevent it from complying with State law, which in court would take precedence over local jurisdiction. He noted that the housing cap and urban growth PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 22, 2003 Page 20