CCMIN091713 - Laserfiche WebLink

Adoption of the proposed ordinance, together with other actions to implement the Housing Element, will allow the city to request a streamlined review of the next Housing Element. The streamlined review requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to focus only on those areas of the Housing Element that are updated and reduces the review time from 90 to 60 days. In addition to specifying how the city will comply with state law, the ordinance provides some control over the preferred incentives or concessions to provided, establishes a sliding scale for density bonuses upto 35% of the project units, and specifies that bonus incentives or concessions are to be considered upon the request of a developer. In order to be eligible for the bonus, a housing project must consist of five or more units and the developer must provide one of four categories of target housing groups: 1) at least 10% low income; 2) at least 5% very low income; 3) a senior housing project with a minimum of 35 units, limited to age 55 and above; or 4) at least 10% of units in a new common interest development. Categories cannot be combined. The ordinance proposes two concessions that do not require developers to submit a financial feasibility analysis, which allows the city to direct developers to those concessions that it feels most comfortable providing. For other concessions or incentives, which include reduced offstreet parking, land donation, bonus for child care facilities, and a bonus for condominium conversions, the city can require a financial analysis demonstrating that the concessions or incentives are required to make the project feasible. Ms. Stern explained that density bonuses are not common. While the law has been in effect since 1978, no one can recall a request for such a bonus in Pleasanton in that time. A survey of surrounding jurisdictions reveal no requests in Dublin or Livermore within at leas the last five years. This in part relates to the city's focus on PUD development review, which allows a fair amount of flexibility without the ties to affordable housing that a developer may not want. She stated that the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance and recommended approval by a 5-0 vote. Mayor Thorne asked and confirmed that, assuming the requirements are met, a density bonus must be granted upon request regardless of whether or not it is in the city's ordinances. Councilmember Pentin asked if there is potential for one developer to purchase affordable housing credits from another in order to qualify for the bonus. Ms. Stern said there is a provision for offsite units but that it has a very limited applicability and is at the discretion of the city. Councilmember Narum thought that several recent projects could have met either category one or two and asked why they would not have requested a density bonus or concession. Ms. Stern explained that they have been able to obtain the desired exceptions through the city's PUD process, which has not tied them to additional affordable units or pushed them into a density that they may not feel comfortable constructing. Mr. Dolan concurred. He explained that with multi-family housing, the development standards are limiting in such a way that it can actually be difficult for a developer to meet the minimum required density within the type of construction they are comfortable with. Councilmember Brown asked and Ms. Stern cofirmed that a developer could utilize the reduced offstreet parking incentive without also achieving a density bonus, but the target units would have to be reduced as well. City Council Minutes Page 11 of 12 September 17, 2013