01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Bocian explained that the AMI is based on Alameda County. The median income of $79,000 that has been referred to on several occasions represents a family of 4 within that larger area. While there is no established AMI for Pleasanton, it is a reasonable assumption that AMI would be at least slightly higher. He provided an overview of the Housing Commission's action, which was to reject both Options 1 and 2. The Commission's decision was based largely on the fact that neither option meets the specific requirements of the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO) while indicates that 15% of the units must be affordable to those of low and very low income. The perspective of staff and legal counsel is that recent litigation and legal actions have limited the City's ability to enforce the IZO, specifically as it relates to the setting of rents. With this acknowledgement, staff negotiated with the developer in a cooperative way to reach an agreement that each could accept. While it is obviously different from previous agreements, staff feels it represents somewhat of a win-win in the current climate. Councilmember Pentin asked and Mr. Bocian confirmed that if the developer had not requested a Development Agreement and the related exceptions, they could propose a project with no low income housing. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio asked whether the developer would be subject to any affordable housing fees if they had adhered to the design guidelines. Mr. Bocian explained that there are options within the IZO that can be used as an alternative to providing the required level of affordable units, one of those being an in lieu fee. There are, however, questions relative to whether the City can actually assess the fee. While it is something for a larger discussion they will look at in the next item, his belief is that the City's fee is low enough to address the impacts of the specific development and therefore can be assessed. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio asked how the fee is set and whether staff has a sense of when it would be to the City's benefit to collect the fee over affordable units. Mr. Bocian said the IZO makes reference to the Municipal Code which sets the fee. Mr. Otto stated that the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the project, with minor changes to the conditions recommended by staff. He called the Council's attention to a memo clarifying these conditions, which also affect certain language in the Development Agreement. He said staff recommends that the Council approve the PUD Major Modification and Development Plan, Development Agreement, Affordable Housing Agreement, and Growth Management Agreement. He noted one change to the draft Growth Management Agreement resolution, which would change to effective date to match that of the PUD ordinance. Councilmembers Brown, Cook-Kallio and Pentin disclosed meeting with the applicant individually to review the project. Mayor Thorne opened the public hearing. Marty Inderbitzen, Pleasant Partners, said they are in complete concurrence with staff on all issues and support the changes outlined in the memo referenced by Mr. Otto. Saris Regis Group is Todd Rigaroni. Drew King is with the Dahlen Group Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio asked where Pleasant Partners stands with respect to school impact fees. Mr. Inderbitzen said he believed they had reached a conceptual agreement that he expected to be affirmed by the end of the week. City Council Minutes Page 16 of 23 April 16, 2013