14 - Laserfiche WebLink

3. Make the PUD Development Plan Findings 1 through 7 as stated in the August 14, 2013 Planning Commission (pp. 41-45 in Attachment 8); 4. Find that the exceptions to the Housing Site Development Stancards and Design Guidelines as stated in the August 14, 2013, Planning Commission staff report (p. 13 in Attachment 8) are acceptable; 5. Introduce the draft ordinance approving Case PUD-96, PUD development plan, subject to the Conditions of Approval, Exhibit A (Attachment 1); and 6. Adopt a resolution approving the Affordable Housing Agreement for the project (Attachment 2); 7. Adopt a resolution approving the Growth Management Agreement for the project (Attachment 4). 8. Introduce the draft ordinance approving the Development Agreement for the project (Attachment 3); FINANCIAL STATEMENT The proposed project would be expected to generate revenues to cover its costs of service. Increases in property taxes would be used to provide service:, such as police, fire, etc., for the increased demand generated by the apartments and single-family homes. The applicant would have to pay development impact fees (e.g., in-lieu park dedication fee, public facilities fee, traffic fees, water/sewer connection foes, etc.) that are used to pay for the cost of new City facilities and infrastructure necessitated by development. HOUSING COMMISSION ACTION At its July 23, 2013, meeting, the Housing Commission reviewed an Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) for the project, which includes 32 affordable rental units and the payment of in-lieu housing fees for the single-family units. Attachment 7 is the minutes of the Housing Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On August 14, 2013, the Planning Commission held its public hearing to review the proposed project. Attachment 6 is the minutes of the of the Planning Commission meeting. Patrick Kiernan, representing the Pleasanton Unified School District, spoke in support of the proposed project. Sean Sowell spoke in opposition to the draft Afordable Housing Agreement (AHA) stating that it did not comply with the City's Inc usionary Zoning Ordinance and that the minimum number of affordable apartments shculd be based on 15% of the entire development and not just the apartments. Mr. Sowell requested the Planning Commission direct staff to re-negotiate the AFA to increase the number of affordable apartments and to increase the amount of the In-Lieu Housing Fee (ILHF) for each single-family unit of the proposed development. Staff replied to the Planning Page 2 of 19