CCMIN041503 - Laserfiche WebLink

with a housing element faces the prospect of possibly being sued for not making efforts to meet the goals that are established in the plan. He felt if we are going to be going through the effort for the development of this plan then we should be equally as serious in every way possible to moving towards meeting the plan'sgoais there. Ms. Hosterman thanked Mr. Wiest and all of the commission members for their hard work on this subject. Barbara Hempill, 3186 Berkshire Court, Human Services Commission liaison to the Housing Commission, said the City Council is to be congratulated for forming a public/private task force to pursue negotiations with owners of developments containing below market rate rental units and to encourage them to extend their regulatory agreements when the current agreements expire. By 2006 122 below market rate units in Arroyo Village, Hacienda Commons, Springhouse Apartments, and Valley Plaza Villages are at risk of being lost. The problem of lost BMR units also arose during the 15 years she was housing coordinator for the City of Livermore. The City Council in Livermore also formed a task fome to work with the owners of the developments eligible to opt out of their 20 year agreements with HUD and other government programs. As members of the Pleasanton City Council have pointed out, it is much more cost effective to maintain existing units than to build new units. However, in spite of City offers of financial and technical assistance underwriting the cost of improvement and subsidizing the rents, the Livermore owners were unwilling to give up the opportunity to rent all of their units at market rate. The owners also did not want to sell to a non-profit that would manage the development and maintain the affordable units. If an owner planned to retain ownership of the development he was not willing to be involved with government regulations and paperwork. Staff was also unable to interest tenants in purchasing their units. Consequently, as is proposed in the Pleasanton Housing Element statement, staff minimized the displacing of tenants by assisting them in finding suitable housing, if possible. Livermore found that the best way to extend the period of affordability was to negotiate a new regulatory agreement with owners when they wanted to refinance. Because retaining affordable units is so difficult, the fact that most of the regulatory agreements that have been executed by the City of Pleasanton since 1996 will continue in perpetuity with the property owners is extremely important. She encouraged Council to continue this practice. The Pleasanton Housing Element also includes policies and programs that provide incentives for infill development, mixed use development, and second units. In order to implement these policies and programs it is essential that the City Council does zone vacant or underdeveloped land to accommodate such development. While infill development is important by its very nature, development costs are higher than for greenfield development. Consequently, if infill development is to be affordable for people with incomes below 80% of the median, higher subsidies will be needed than to make greenfield developments affordable. Inclusionary affordability requirements work best in large greenfield developments by having the market rate units subsidized as lower cost units. However, this does not work in small infill parcels that frequently have not been developed because they are too small, too costly, oddly shaped, have unsuitable surroundings or have an owner who does not agree to sell. Infill development in downtown makes sense for seniors and disabled persons who need to be Pleasanton City Council 16 04/15/03 Minutes