PC 012203 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chuck Wiedel, 7295 Valley `Trails Drive, noted that he was a Realtor of 25 years' standing in the community, and noted that housing did not exist in Pleasanton under $118,000, and would barely exist at $284,000. He noted there were many people in Mr. Winther's situation in town, and stated that it was impossible for people in the moderate income bracket to get into housing without help from the City. He recalled that in 1989, there were 800 applicants for 200 low-income units at Ridgeview Commons. I-Ie agreed with Mr. Fiedler's comments that some properties in the draft Element were not appropriate_ 1-ie noted that the Staples Ranch property was to be rezoned to Medium Density Residential ~MDR~, and the neighbors objected strongly to it. He noted that because Stoneridge Drives will not be expanded, there would be little access to that area. He believed that the Housing Element contained a great deal o£ excellent work, but he was concerned that the housing projections were more of a wish list_ He believed that the City must change its direction, and exhibit a strong commitment to prezone property to meet its future use prior to the submission of development plans_ He recommended that the Housing Element not be approved until these issues were iriore fully addressed. Delores Bengston, 568 Hamilton Way, supported the prez_oning of property. She noted that a senior who wished to downsize their home was able to find housing in Pleasanton if they had the Financial means to do so_ She was very concerned about those residents who were in the moderate-, low-, and very-low income brackets, and noted that there was little housing stock in Pleasanton that met those criteria. She was concerned that secondary units would not become available for people outside the owner's family unless some teeth were put into the policies. She was glad that there would be a survey, and would like to see incentives and very clear guidelines on how it would be used to help the community meat its housing share. Bill Jorgensen, 1706 Beachwood Way, noted that i£he had not bought his home 30 years ago, he would not be able to afford it now, much as his children cannot afford to live in Pleasanton. He noted that the Busch property had six acres designated for high density residential, and noted that the HDR was proposed at just below 30 units per acre, the norm for privately-developed affordable senior housing in Pleasanton. He noted that only 23 0£ the 1 72 units will be affordable to seniors with incomes of 50% of the median, and 64 will be available to those with incomes of 60% of median. He noted that the 1 91 unit MDR residential portion, developed at 77 units below the 268 unit midpoint, and 144 units below the 335 units at the 25% density bonus entitled to them because of the affordable housing in tha plan_ He noted that Table IV-15 and IV-16 contain no examples of developments granted at 25% density bonus for including affordable housing. He believed that the Busch property plan achieved overall affordability in only 24% of its units. Mr_ Jorgensen noted Thai other properties listed in Table IV-17 were problematic, including properties number 46 through 66. These properties are located on the City's west side and consist of unincorporated, steeply sloping land with limited development potential dun to gv-ological, environmental, and view shed restrainis, wish the exception o£ the Mara property. In 1998, the City Council approved an 89 unit low-density development there. I-iowever, the residents defeated the approval by voter referendum by arguing that the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 22, 2003 Page 22