CCMIN101700 - Laserfiche WebLink

The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers - Ayala, Dennis, Michelotti, Pieo, and Mayor Tarvet NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Item 6C ADDroval of Incinsi0narv Zoninl Ordinance Establishine Requirements for the Provision of Affordable Housing in New Developments (SR00: Sloven Bocian presented the staff report. Peter MacDonald, 5258 Crestline Way, presented his evaluation of the proposed ordinance indicating his objections to the ordinance. The response to this is included in the staff report. Hc spoke on behalf of the children of Pleasanton and the approximately 8,000 Pleasanton families who live in rental housing. He stated that he is opposed to the inclusionary housing zoning ordinance in its present form. In this fom~ the inclusionary ordinance should be called the "anti-affordable" housing ordinance. This seeks to solve the shortage of affordable housing by taxing the market rate housing consumer. The economic development analysis concludes that the proposed inclusionary ordinance will increase the rent for vimtally every apartment in Pleasanton by $100 per month. Many people in Pleasanton apartments cannot afford another $100 per month in rent. The economic development analysis also concludes that the proposed inclusionary ordinance will increase the cost of single family homes in Pleasanton by approximamly $40,000. Many young families cannot afford to pay another $40,000 to live in Pleasanton. He stated that he is not alone in his concerns. He cited that the California Slate Department of Housing and Community Development has asked Pleasanton not to develop, not to adopt, an inclusionary ordinance. The Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce has asked Pleasanton not to adopt this inclusionmy ordinance. What makes this inclusionary ordinance so destructive is its inefficiency. For every $1 of housing subsidy from this ordinance, people in the private housing market will pay $13 in higher housing costs. There is a group of government and political people who are ready to celebrate that they will have $17 million in housing subsidies m hand out. Meanwhile, out in the private housing economy, we will have private citizens paying $243 million in higher housing costs to finance this inclusinnary ordinance. That is $13 of cost for each $1 of benefit. This is a government program with 92% waste. He stated that at the Housing Commissian~lanmng Commission joint meeting at least one commissioner took the position that Pleasanton fees do not affect housing prices. Mr. MacDonald stated that you do not need to be an economics major or a genius to kmow that $1 of additional cost normally will lead to $1 of higher prices. For the doubters, a section has been added to the economic impact analysis explaining how the funding for inclusionmy zoning is artificial housing inflation. Higher housing prices mean lower living standards for our children. As a result of bad planning decisions by public officials, Pleasanton now has four bedroom tract houses in Pleasanton selling for $600,000. That means your children will be able to live in Pleasanton when their annual incomes reach $175,000 per year and Pleasanton City Council 9 10/17/00 Minutes