01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Staff and HCD also engaged in extensive dialogue regarding the viability of the site inventory as well as the inventory surplus that some have questioned. HCD expressed the opinion that the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) number is intended as a minimum and that the inventory surplus was actually quite moderate, but ultimately refrained from making any official comment on that specific issue. Mr. Dolan discussed the second action being requested of the Council, reminding the Council that the current zoning of the CM Capital 2 site is Planned Unit Development Mixed-Use with a specific requirement of a minimum of 30 units per acre. While this density was required to meet inventory requirements during the last Housing Element update, the city has received considerable community input noting that the city has sufficient inventory to meet its new numbers while still rezoning the site to a maximum of 12.5 units per acre with a maximum building height of 40 feet. Mr. Dolan reported that, as required by state law, both the Housing Element and proposed rezoning were considered by the Planning Commission on December 10, 2014. The Commission unanimously recommended approval of both items as well as the finding that there is adequate environmental documentation to take these actions. HCD has 90 days to certify the Housing Element, which must be submitted no later than January 30, 2015, following adoption by the Council. Staff therefore recommends that the Council find that the environmental documentation meets the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, approve the Housing Element of the General Plan by resolution, find that the rezoning of the CM Capital 2 site is consistent with the General Plan, and introduce the draft ordinance for the rezoning. Vice-Mayor Brown said she understand the differences between affordable and lower income housing. She requested confirmation from staff that some portion of the 1,300 for-sale units currently under consideration by the Base Plan in the East Pleasanton Specific Plan would also qualify as below market or lower income units. She cited the Lund Ranch project and its 50 affordable units as another example. Mr. Dolan explained that the city's IZO does require a certain portion of such developments to be affordable. However, in a subdivision like that the city's practice has been to find an alternative means of accomplishing that affordability through the negotiation of an Affordable Housing Agreement that might allow the payment of an in lieu fee or securing some other form of housing. He further explained that the trend has been to move away from restricting that type of single-family detached home ownership as it is simply too difficult for the city to manage. City Manager Fialho added that the examples cited by the Vice-Mayor are above-moderate types of developments that typically do not lend themselves well to the below-market rate product. However, in the business park where you might see something more like a 12.5 unit per acre project, which is more in the vein of townhomes and condominiums, staff could deploy the current IZO to require the developer to build, sell and maintain below-market rate owner-occupied units. Councilmember Pentin asked why it might be preferable not to. Mr. Fialho explained that the IZO allows affordability to be implemented in a number ways. For the owner-occupied example he just provided, it is ultimately at the Council's discretion. Staffs typical recommendation for those kinds of densities is to have the developer build the affordable units as part of the project unless there is some additional amenity to be gained for the larger community. Sometimes the developer may make a larger contribution to the Lower Income Housing Fund which, when combined with other contributions, might leverage a greater amount of affordability elsewhere. Vice-Mayor Brown requested and Mr. Dolan confirmed that the expanded growth management language requested by HCD is intended to preclude these affordable units, wherever they might be City Council Minutes Page 3 of 6 January 6,2015