Town Square

Post a New Topic

Pleasanton Council, Housing Commission meet tonight on affordable housing issues

Original post made on May 1, 2013

The Pleasanton City Council will hold a workshop meeting at 7 p.m. tonight with the its Housing Commission to discuss the city's affordable housing policies and ways to encourage apartment complex developers to abide by provisions of an inclusionary zoning ordinance (IZO) that no longer applies to them.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, May 1, 2013, 8:05 AM

Comments (9)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frank Lynn
a resident of Valley Trails
on May 1, 2013 at 11:35 am

Jeb - thank you for this article - but can you cite the court rulings that have determined that municipal housing policies that can no longer be enforced?

And doesn't the State of California have an affordable housing mandate that's 15% of new developments? And is that still in effect? Or is it just a high density housing mandate?

What's in it for Pleasanton to force developers to rent their apartments for below market rents if they're not legally required to? And if municipal ordinances requiring affordable housing are no longer applicable, does that mean Governor Brown's lawsuit against the city of Pleasanton is no longer relevant?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Becky Dennis
a resident of Foxborough Estates
on May 1, 2013 at 12:24 pm

The staff report and attachments for this evening's workshop will answer many of your questions. They are available at the following link:
Web Link
The workshop is open to the public.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frank Lynn
a resident of Valley Trails
on May 1, 2013 at 4:16 pm

Thank you Ms. Dennis for the information - but it brings up a lot more questions and some major concerns for me. For instance, page 4 of the first document gives the impression that the City of Pleasanton is pushing for the acceptance of Section 8 vouchers, when legally, we don't have to enforce such a policy.

Page 8 of the second document states the city would actually waive impact fees for developers who create affordable housing. This is horrific for the schools as the impact fees for high-density, low-income projects don't even come close to off-setting the impact to local schools. And our city is actually wanting to encourage builders to build low-income housing while depriving the schools of impact fees?

It's pretty obvious to me that our planning commission/council is working on behalf of developers/construction unions and not the voters of Pleasanton.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by agree
a resident of Birdland
on May 1, 2013 at 6:29 pm

I agree with Frank.

We cannot have affordable housing (which is usually another name for subsidized housing) and not have those units pay the necessary mitigation fees, especially schools. Since the state is pushing 'affordable housing' in our city, the developers should go to the state to get affordable housing subsidizes to pay for the mitigation fees. The city and school district should collect the whole amount. An affordable unit does not have any less impact on our schools or traffic or parks. If the state wants the developers to pay less, the state can pay for this.

The "One Bay Area" plan that is being pushed is destroying the bay area. They will not be happy until every city is like Oakland. They do not want any city to be better than any other city in the bay area.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Eyeball
a resident of Amador Estates
on May 1, 2013 at 6:33 pm

*Warning* Don't let the city council mislead you.. They don't care about the residents opinions. They have already decided what they are going to do on "affordable housing." This is a smokescreen that appears to us like we have a voice a say in what happens. We don't this is already predetermined.

They are taking the property taxes and giving the funds to the developer. They will then turn around and say they can't pay the teacher, police, fire, etc.....

This is UN Agenda 21 !! Go research it...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by agree
a resident of Birdland
on May 1, 2013 at 8:51 pm

Frank also said, "It's pretty obvious to me that our planning commission/council is working on behalf of developers/construction unions and not the voters of Pleasanton."

Yup. Look at the candidates for council and see which ones are receiving 'donations' by the developers and unions, and this confirms it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Truth
a resident of Birdland
on May 1, 2013 at 9:47 pm

Hilarious..you guys think you have a voice in this matter....it's state mandated because the city of Pleasanton takes federal funding for road maintenance....you have no voiced this matter!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by agree
a resident of Birdland
on May 2, 2013 at 11:22 am

Nothing to do with Federal Funds.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Research first
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 2, 2013 at 5:38 pm

If you check out the details before jumping to conclusions, you'll see that affordable housing means someone earning $45,000 can afford to live there.

Web Link


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Where's the wind?
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 709 views

Martin Litton, force of nature. An appreciation.
By Tom Cushing | 1 comment | 570 views

Pineapple Express memories
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 378 views