12 - Laserfiche WebLink

• Clarify programs to include assistance to those with disabilities (including developmental disabilities) to meet the objectives of Senate Bill (SB) 812; • Consolidate Condominium Conversion Programs and reevaluate the City Condominium Conversion Ordinance and regulations (Programs 8.1 and 8.2); • Consider adding incentives such as a density bonus to utilize rehabilitation funds in exchange for affordable housing (Program 14.4); • Consider additional programs and incentives (including waiving fees or development standard variances) to encourage second unit construction (Programs 6.2 and 6.3); • Continue community discussion regarding the East Pleasanton Specific Plan (Program 46.5); • Review the Inclusionary Zoning Program, initiate discussions regarding program effectiveness and amend the program to be consistent with current court decisions (Programs 17.1 and 17.2); and • Delete all programs completed within the previous planning period. Questions have also been raised about whether the Growth Management Ordinance gives any priority to affordable housing over market rate units. The current language of the ordinance does not include such requirements however, the City Council has the authority to reserve units for specific projects on an annual basis to provide equity among prospective housing developers, including developers of affordable housing. Housing Sites Inventory (Draft Appendix B): The Planning Commission has previously stated it would give further consideration of the following potential rezonings that would change the current housing site inventory: 1) rezoning the Irby - Kaplan -Zia property to residential uses; and 2) rezoning the CM Capital property to allow for lower density residential development or only non - residential uses. However, the proponents of the Irby - Kaplan -Zia rezonings have indicated they would like to remove their site from consideration for rezoning at this time, therefore this report does not include any of the additional information previously requested by the Planning Commission related to that site. As part of the previous Housing Element cycle, extending from 2007 -2014, the City was required to rezone properties to meet its previously - allocated RHNA. The City proceeded very deliberately in rezoning properties to meet the RHNA requirements, taking into account a variety of factors including: Smart Growth principles, feasibility of development and criteria important for California Tax Credit Allocations for affordable housing funding, ensuring that existing infrastructure could accommodate new growth, protecting existing neighborhoods, and enhancing the City's quality of life. Out of an initial list of 20 sites, the City undertook rezoning only of 9 sites, with the express intent of meeting its RHNA requirements in a cautious way that was protective of the City's social, environmental, and economic fabric. Case No. P14 -0440, City of Pleasanton Planning Commission Page 5 of 12