Laserfiche WebLink
The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers- Dennis, Michelotti, Mohr, Pico, and Mayor Tarver <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />In~lljsionary_ Housing <br /> <br /> Mr. Rasmussen briefly explained this section. The Planning Commission recommended <br />the program be deleted because the State Department of Housing and Community Development <br />indicated it would not approve Pleasanton's Housing Element unless it was deleted. The purpose <br />of the program was to establish additional requirements beyond what the City has that would <br />require that affordable housing units be included in market rate projects. The concern the State <br />expressed was that if the market rate units have to bear the cost of subsidizing these inclusionary <br />units, then it raises the cost of the market rate units. There is another program in the General <br />Plan that allows us to do some type of inclusionary housing in other projects. The State did not <br />comment on those other programs. He felt it was important not to delete the other programs, <br />but in order to get State approval of the Housing Element he felt it was important to delete this <br />particular one. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked what was currently considered market rate? <br /> <br /> Mr. Rasmussen indicated that was determined by ABAG. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated in terms of price, it is close to $200,000, which is above moderate <br />income. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr indicated her point was that it is not practical to put a moderate income unit <br />in the midst of some of the higher priced developments, such as Laguna Oaks. She has always <br />supported the low-income housing fee because it generates revenue to distribute the housing <br />where possible throughout the community. She especially liked the 25 % on rental housing <br />because that works very well. If the purpose of the inclusionary housing provision is to create <br />more below market units, then perhaps we could look at the low-income housing fee and perhaps <br />raise it or put it on a per square foot basis. Those big homes that could not realistically have <br />moderate homes in their midst could pay to have them elsewhere in the community. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Tarver, seconded by Ms. Micheloff, to delete Program 9.5 on <br />page 11/-21, which reads as follows: "Consider inclusionary requirements for new <br />residential developments to provide a minimum number of below-market-rate units." <br /> <br />07109196 -18- <br /> <br /> <br />