PC 062304 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chairperson Roberts agreed that approvals should be on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Maas suggested that certain criteria be employed so that Council would not be involved in every case. If the applicant did not qualify, if could be appealed to Council. Commissioner Fox noted that the City was close to build-out and expressed concern that affordable housing credits would be sold to someone who would use them to build houses on decreasing acreage in Pleasanton. Commissioner Sullivan noted that air pollution credits granted by the Air Management District still required an application to receive them and included discretionary approval over their validity. He requested that the guidelines include similar discretionary approval. The Commissioners generally agreed that would be a good idea. Commissioner Sullivan expressed concern that a single developer would count on applying credits from one project to another. Chairperson Roberts suggested that the Commissioner recommend that staff prepare guidelines. Commissioner Fox noted that after the Busch Property was approved by Council, the developer decided to increase the affordable units. She preferred that the number of affordable units be "set in stone" when approved by City Council. Chairperson Roberts objected to that practice because the affordable units were strongly desired by the community. Commissioner Fox advised that the PUD may be referended only within 30 days. In response to an inquiry, Ms. Nerland advised that if the PUD were to be amended, she did not believe the entire PUD could be opened up again but that the amendment to the PUD would be subject to referendum. Chairperson Roberts believed that the issue should be a PUD modification. Mr. Swift advised that it depended on the structure of how the PUD was approved. In this particular instance, the PUD had a condition that left those kinds of issues to the subsequent agreement. For instance, if an increase of affordable units from 50 percent to 75 percent were desired, that would be a PUD modification, which would be a legislative action and subject to referendum. On the other hand, if the PUD is approved with a final determination regarding percentage of units, affordability levels, etc., the subject of a future agreement between the City Council and the developer, then the PUD would be carried out administratively and would not be subject to referendum. Ms. Nerland suggested that, depending on the project, a range of affordable units in the PUD be created to give some flexibility but also certainty on the absolute parameters. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 23, 2004 Page 5 of 15