PC 06/10/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Sullivan agreed with Commissioner Kumazan. He inquired what the incentive would be for developers to build affordable housing voluntarily. Mr. Bocian stated that staff is currently looking at an inclusionary zoning ordinance which would provide some incentive for developers and builders such as City assistance in looking for buyers and selling the units. Commissioner Sullivan inquired if developers would receive Growth Management allocation if they voluntazily build affordable housing. Mr. Iserson replied that the Council gives priority to projects that include low-income housing. In addition, developments with affordable housing can receive a density bonus which would enable them to get additional units in for an appropriate project in an appropriate location. Mr. Bocian stated that the Affordable Housing Commission also discussed whether a bigger home would have a more significant impact on affordable housing and should therefore pay a higher fee; or if a lazger lot size would take up more land, therefore potentially increasing the potential impact for more affordable units. The Commission ultimately decided that any developer who does not build affordable housing units would have to pay the fee regardless of house size. Commissioner Dove raised the issue regarding the location oflower-income units within a project site. He cited the California Reflections project as an example where the siting oflower-income units by the railroad tracks was perceived as discrimination. He pointed out that it would be easier to build affordable housing units if there were less pressure to put them with the more expensive units or less reluctancy to locate them next to the freeway. Mr. Bocian commented that this issue involves a delicate balance between building the units in a way acceptable to the community, immediate neighbors, and the people who will own and live in the units, and how the value of the unit is determined. Phil Serna, Director of Policy Reseazch for the Homebuilders Association of Northern California, 200 Porter Drive, Suite 200, San Ramon, read a letter he had sent eazlier to the Planning Commission indicating the Association's objections and suggestions with regazd to the increase in the Lower-Income Housing Fee for new residential construction. In his letter, Mr. Serna stated that the Association's objections hinge on the arbitrary manner with which the City has determined the affordable housing demand and subsequent fee loads, and that ignoring the actual demand for affordable housing violates the state law governing the fee nexus requirements as well as a provision of the Housing Element of Pleasanton's General Plan. He proposed that an equitable solution would be to distribute the current fee load according to the City's finding that new residential development will generate a demand for 812 units or 30% of the total need, and C/O/I will create a demand for 1,889 units or 70% of the total need. He concluded by requesting the Planning Commission to recommend that staff seek a more prudent and equitable approach to collecting the fee. Commissioner Sullivan inquired if the Affordable Housing Commission had public hearings to discuss this issue. Mr. Bocian stated that a public heazing was held on the issue but that no public input was received. He added that the City is currently holding workshops relative to all City fees. Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 June 10, 1998