Laserfiche WebLink
with 5 person households. While not technically consistent with the ordinance, it is typical with past <br /> practice. Concessions relative to unit mix are also consistent with the Council's direction to be flexible <br /> and creative. <br /> Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio recognized that the proposed in lieu fee is more than currently required but also <br /> likely less than would be required following the nexus study. She asked why, if the goal is to provide <br /> affordable units, the city would elect to collect the fee instead. <br /> Mr. Bocian explained that those funds could potentially be leveraged for a different type of project that <br /> might yield even more affordability. <br /> Councilmember Brown asked if the portion of the in lieu fee not earmarked for the Lower Income <br /> Housing Fund could be spent in other ways, such as a facility to help economically disadvantaged <br /> students. <br /> Mr. Bocian confirmed that staff's analysis to date is that the portion equivalent to the Lower Income <br /> Housing fee should be reserved for lower income housing purposes; the remainder is somewhat open <br /> and includes a number of uses. <br /> Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio asked and Mr. Bocian confirmed that the city retains this flexibility, even if the <br /> nexus study were to result in an increase to the current fee. Mr. Bocian clarified that this only applies to <br /> transactions finalized before the new fee takes effect. <br /> Councilmember Brown asked whether this level of flexibility is typical. <br /> Mr. Bocian said he felt it appropriate, regardless of whether or not it is normal, based on the number of <br /> moving parts involved in staff's recommendation. <br /> Councilmember Narum asked whether exercising the fee option would sacrifice the dedicated <br /> accessible units. <br /> Mr. Bocian explained that all the units would include universal design to the level required by the <br /> building code; however, the special provisions within the AHA that go beyond universal design and <br /> relate to how those units are reserved and maintained would no longer apply. <br /> City Traffic Engineer Tassano presented the project's traffic analysis. He explained that the <br /> transportation analysis conducted as part of the Housing Element's 2011 Environmental Impact Report <br /> reviewed all 17 Housing Element sites including this location. The analysis studied 33 separate <br /> intersections and 60 roadway segments, and concluded that there were no impacts to the intersections <br /> identified. The report did find 2 impacted roadway segments, only one of which relates to the project. <br /> The EIR found that the two lane portion of First Street is deficient both with and without the project and <br /> that the impacts identified were significant and unavoidable but would be mitigated by regional traffic <br /> improvements. <br /> In addition to the Housing Element's EIR, each project that comes forward as a result of the Housing <br /> Element is subject to a supplemental traffic circulation analysis. The analysis for this project, which was <br /> completed in June 2013, identified a set of impacts and mitigation based on internal and external trip <br /> generation, site circulation, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, vehicle queues, collision history and trip <br /> distribution. <br /> Mr. Tassano reviewed the report's discussion on trip generation and distribution, which predicts that the <br /> estimated 285 peak hour trips will be distributed as follows: 40% headed north on Valley Avenue, 25% <br /> headed west towards First Street, 15% headed to or from Livermore, and 20% headed towards or from <br /> City Council Minutes Page 4 of 10 August 6, 2013 <br />