My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN010615
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
CCMIN010615
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/31/2015 2:27:43 PM
Creation date
3/31/2015 2:27:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/6/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Staff and HCD also engaged in extensive dialogue regarding the viability of the site inventory as well as <br /> the inventory surplus that some have questioned. HCD expressed the opinion that the Regional <br /> Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) number is intended as a minimum and that the inventory surplus <br /> was actually quite moderate, but ultimately refrained from making any official comment on that specific <br /> issue. <br /> Mr. Dolan discussed the second action being requested of the Council, reminding the Council that the <br /> current zoning of the CM Capital 2 site is Planned Unit Development Mixed-Use with a specific <br /> requirement of a minimum of 30 units per acre. While this density was required to meet inventory <br /> requirements during the last Housing Element update, the city has received considerable community <br /> input noting that the city has sufficient inventory to meet its new numbers while still rezoning the site to <br /> a maximum of 12.5 units per acre with a maximum building height of 40 feet. <br /> Mr. Dolan reported that, as required by state law, both the Housing Element and proposed rezoning <br /> were considered by the Planning Commission on December 10, 2014. The Commission unanimously <br /> recommended approval of both items as well as the finding that there is adequate environmental <br /> documentation to take these actions. HCD has 90 days to certify the Housing Element, which must be <br /> submitted no later than January 30, 2015, following adoption by the Council. Staff therefore <br /> recommends that the Council find that the environmental documentation meets the requirements of the <br /> California Environmental Quality Act, approve the Housing Element of the General Plan by resolution, <br /> find that the rezoning of the CM Capital 2 site is consistent with the General Plan, and introduce the <br /> draft ordinance for the rezoning. <br /> Vice-Mayor Brown said she understand the differences between affordable and lower income housing. <br /> She requested confirmation from staff that some portion of the 1,300 for-sale units currently under <br /> consideration by the Base Plan in the East Pleasanton Specific Plan would also qualify as below <br /> market or lower income units. She cited the Lund Ranch project and its 50 affordable units as another <br /> example. <br /> Mr. Dolan explained that the city's IZO does require a certain portion of such developments to be <br /> affordable. However, in a subdivision like that the city's practice has been to find an alternative means <br /> of accomplishing that affordability through the negotiation of an Affordable Housing Agreement that <br /> might allow the payment of an in lieu fee or securing some other form of housing. He further explained <br /> that the trend has been to move away from restricting that type of single-family detached home <br /> ownership as it is simply too difficult for the city to manage. <br /> City Manager Fialho added that the examples cited by the Vice-Mayor are above-moderate types of <br /> developments that typically do not lend themselves well to the below-market rate product. However, in <br /> the business park where you might see something more like a 12.5 unit per acre project, which is more <br /> in the vein of townhomes and condominiums, staff could deploy the current IZO to require the <br /> developer to build, sell and maintain below-market rate owner-occupied units. <br /> Councilmember Pentin asked why it might be preferable not to. <br /> Mr. Fialho explained that the IZO allows affordability to be implemented in a number ways. For the <br /> owner-occupied example he just provided, it is ultimately at the Council's discretion. Staffs typical <br /> recommendation for those kinds of densities is to have the developer build the affordable units as part <br /> of the project unless there is some additional amenity to be gained for the larger community. <br /> Sometimes the developer may make a larger contribution to the Lower Income Housing Fund which, <br /> when combined with other contributions, might leverage a greater amount of affordability elsewhere. <br /> Vice-Mayor Brown requested and Mr. Dolan confirmed that the expanded growth management <br /> language requested by HCD is intended to preclude these affordable units, wherever they might be <br /> City Council Minutes Page 3 of 6 January 6,2015 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.