CCMIN071911 - Laserfiche WebLink

Pico, and she asked if this was reflective in the policy. Ms. Stern said this particular comment was related to not allowing in-lieu fees for additional parking spaces, but to require they be built on site. She clarified with Councilmember McGovern that reducing parking spaces would not be done in the downtown. Councilmember Cook-Kallio asked for clarification: • Policy 26: There was some reference in the staff report about clarifying the statement of, "At least 25% of all units affordable to very low and/or low income households in perpetuity shall be considered to have the second highest priority", as this seems incomplete. Mr. Dolan stated Policy 25 has the highest priority. Councilmember McGovern continued suggested amendments: • Policy 33: It talks about preserving historical and architectural significant structures in the downtown, and they wanted to make sure others in the full City could be encouraged to be maintained, and suggested changing the wording to, "Encourage the preservation of historical and architectural significant residential structures Citywide, including the downtown area pursuant to the General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan." Councilmember Cook-Kallio asked for clarification and amendment: • Policy 38.3: She requested clarification insofar as it does not mention under what circumstances or who would issue the RFP. "In order to facilitate the provision of an affordable housing and mixed income environment, the City may issue an RFP in coniunction or in partnership with a non-profit or for-profit." Councilmember McGovern continued suggested amendments: • Policy 43: Remove from the end of the sentence "of each other". • Policy 45.5: This was not heard by the Planning Commission and this was re-worded to read, "The City is committed to working in good faith with non-profit and for-profit developers in the East Specific Plan area during the specific plan process to secure property for development of family housing affordable to low and very low households." Councilmember Thorne referred to page 4 of the staff report, and received an explanation from Ms. Stern as to SB2 requirements for shelters and transitional homes. Councilmember Thorne referred to the bottom of page 6 and top of page 7 of the staff report, which states, "For example, Sites 11 and 14 were included in the list on the assumption that a specific plan process that would include funding for El Charro Road would be started in the first quarter of 2012 and in the second quarter of 2013." He confirmed with Mr. Dolan that this only referred to the plan being finished in 2013 and not the funding mechanism. Councilmember Thorne asked for comment about how DSRSD will determine what triggers their upgrade of the treatment plant. He was concerned that properties on plots would actually be what trigger the upgrade of the treatment plant. Mr. Fialho stated the water treatment plant is built to conditions that support General Plan build out for the communities of Dublin, San Ramon, and Pleasanton. Therefore, there are no capacity issues short-term for the water treatment plant or the export pipeline. There are potentially some distribution impacts which are the pipes in the ground that deliver conveyance to the treatment plant. Depending upon where growth is occurring they may have to upgrade some of this infrastructure. Councilmember Thorne asked for an explanation of the rationale in moving from 3 to 23 acres on the CM Capital site. Mr. Dolan stated the Planning Commission was trying to be responsive to the input they heard from the community around Gateway. Instead of eliminating the acreage, they decided to do a swap, so it left Gateway and it went to CM Capital. City Council Minutes Page 9 of 14 July 19,2011