ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Page 3 Developer IZO negates: • The requirement to provide affordable units in perpetuity. • City's ability to require depth of affordability for households earning less than 80%AMI. • (These negatives have essentially disappeared with the Palmer decision.) •A review of the City's Housing Development Standards and Design Guidelines as they relate to affordable housing. (Attachment 3) COMMENTS City Design Standards positives: • Requirements for 10%3 bedroom units and 35%2 bedroom units needed by workforce families. • The required amenities list and discretion allowances for the City. City Design Standard negatives: • Requires an enforceable IZO to achieve adequate 2 and 3 bedroom units. • Allows unspecified numbers of studio units that no one really wants. Developer Design Standards positives: • The PHD Regulations flow from Pleasanton's IZO,which doesn't legally exist. • Allowance for an undefined number studio apartments in the affordability mix. • Invalidation of the IZO as a tool for requiring affordable units within apartment complexes puts all offers of affordability at the developer's option. • The allowance for exceptions when an alternate design meets the"intent and purpose"of the PUD regulations allows roan for interpretation in negotiations with the City. Developer Design Standards negatives: • There are City expectations of certain design elements,amenities,and affordability. •General discussion of concepts that have been presented related alternatives to the City's IZO. • Discussed below •General discussion regarding process for commission meetings,including review of recommended Affordable Housing Agreements. • See above regarding processing for Affordable Housing Agreements.