PC 012203 - Laserfiche WebLink

boundaries are both voter-controlled and therefore cannot be altered by the City Council to in order to comply with State law_ These constraints provide significant obstacles to meeting Pleasanton's housing needs. He believed the proposed Housing Element does not contain any program to mitigate the severe impact on the provisions of low- and very-low income housing as Pleasanton approaches build-out_ He noted that the necessity to mitigate these voter-controlled growth restrictions requires the Housing Element to reserve a specified portion of Pleasanton's housing capacity for low- and very-low-income housing units. He believed that within this context, it was especially important that the Housing Element contain an analysis and programs offering mitigation, which it does not. Mr_ Jones noted that by 2006, Pleasanton will have to provide 2,636 above-moderate, 1,239 moderate, 455 low-income, and 720 very-low-income units, for a total of 5,059 units. At present, Pleasanton only has 4,000 housing units remaining under the 29,000 housing cap. He noted that inclusionary zoning would provide only 600 of the required 1 , 1 84 affordable housing units required. He believed that Pleasanton's construction and approval of high-priced homes hover $650,000 has increased 300% of the identified need at the expense of workforce, senior, and community-sponsored affordable housing. He believed that the Element did not provide for Pleasanton meeting its own voter-approved General Plan housing needs of 15% of build-out. He believed that the Housing Element was completely inadequate at meeting Pleasanton's housing needs at the state and local level. Patricia Belding, 7703 Highland Oaks Drive, noted that she had served on the Housing Element Task Force, and was an advocate of affordable housing. She noted that the State wants the City to zone specific properties at sufficient densities to meet its regional housing needs determination, even without a development plan. She believed that otherwise, it is speculative that it would ever happen. She noted that the present list of affordable housing was a wish list, relying on previous methods that had not produced housing for very-low income households_ She believed that those methods must be changed. She noted that the State representatives insisted on stronger language in the City's commitment to meeting its housing needs. She believed that greater attention must be paid to low- and very-low income housing, and noted that Measure V removed the possibility of using the Bernal property. Ms_ Belding noted that Citizens for a Caring Community intended to keep its remarks short, and asked the C7omn-iissioners if they were prepared to zone specific properties at certain densities, and to make the recommendations in advance of looking at specific proposals. She asked if the Planning Commission was ready to send them to the City Council with a recommendation for its approval, including the 25% to be added to the unit count, as suggested by staff. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin, Mr. Iserson noted that the City performed well in meE.ting regional housing needs from 1988-1995 page 7, Table IV-3 ~. ~[~he City exceeded the total number, above-moderate, moderate, came within 100 units of low-, and trussed the very-low incotrte number by 662, which was not uncommon in the Bay Area_ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 22, 2003 Page 21