My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 082813
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
PC 082813
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:50:31 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 3:47:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/28/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Olson moved to find that the proposed modifications to the PUDs <br />are consistent with the General Plan and to recommend approval to the City <br />Council of Case PUD- 81- 30- 55M/PUD- 85- 08 -27M, subject to the Conditions of <br />Approval listed in Exhibit A of the staff report, with a modification that the last six <br />words of Condition No. 2.D. of City Council Ordinance No. 1596 be deleted. <br />Commissioner Posson seconded the motion. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE: <br />AYES: <br />Commissioners Olson, Pearce, Posson, and Ritter. <br />NOES: <br />Allen. <br />ABSTAIN: <br />None. <br />RECUSED: Commissioner O'Connor. <br />ABSENT: None. <br />Resolution No. PC- 2013 -44 recommending approval to the City Council of <br />PUD- 81- 30- 55M/PUD -85 -08 -27M was entered and adopted as motioned. <br />Commissioner O'Connor returned to the dais. <br />b. P13 -2012, City of Pleasanton <br />Application to amend Title 17 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code by <br />adding a new Chapter 17.38 (Density Bonus) to comply with State <br />Density Bonus Law. <br />Deborah Diamond presented the staff report and explained that scope and key <br />elements of the proposal. <br />Commissioner O'Connor noted that requests for density bonus are so uncommon and <br />inquired why the City has so few requests for density bonus or none at all. <br />Ms. Diamond replied that a lot of it depends on the individual projects and the individual <br />sites. She indicated that many times, for a bonus, a city will establish a maximum <br />density that will allow housing up to the amount of development that the builder could <br />get under wood frame construction, and anything above that would have to go to steel <br />or concrete. She added that many times, developers are not willing to take on the <br />additional expense and retooling to do non -wood frame construction. She noted that <br />there are affordable housing developers who are developing straight affordable housing, <br />probably not much in the Bay Area, who frequently use density bonus as a tool. She <br />added, however, that sometimes, when there is something odd about a site, a <br />developer will provide affordable housing, not so much to get the bonus but to get a <br />concession such as a reduced setback or some other re- configuration. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that in one of his conversations with Ms. Stern about their planning <br />careers, both noted that they had never processed one of these applications in all the <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 28, 2013 Page 13 of 16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.