PC 070903 - Laserfiche WebLink

3. The developer could provide land; or 4. The developer could perform a credit transfer- Staff recommended that the credits as contained in the inclusionary zoning ordinance gives the Council flexibility to accept or deny the credits. Regarding the Busch property, staff believed that the use of the credits is appropriate, and that the City Council had that llexi bility. Staff requested the Planning Commission's feedback and recommendation to the Council regarding the applicability of the credits. Commissioner Kameny noted that the City would have 137 affordable units when the project breaks ground, instead of 87 units, which he believed was a positive development In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Bocian confirmed that there were no instances of double-dipping with respect to the 5 1 additional fee waivers and additional credits- A discussion of fee waivers ensued. Commissioner Kameny noted that the public facility fee for each apartment was $2,020; the traffic impact fee was $2,307 per unit; and the water connection fee was $1,200. He inquired whether those were the same fee dollar amounts that asingle-family house in the future Lund site would pay. Mr_ Bocian replied that the single-fan~aily house fees were higher. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED_ Mark Sweeney, 6150 Stoneridge Mall Road, applicant, noted that the future Lund project would not receive fee waivers, and that it would not have affordable units- I-Ie noted that it would not be double-dipping, and would get the credit for the fact that affordable housing was built in the past In addition, it would not get a fee waiver- He urged the Commission to adopt staff recommendation # 1 on page 3 of the stat£ report= "Retain the current language as included in the May 6 staff report allowing on-site credits and off=site credits if approved. by the City Council." He noted that their only property in Pleasanton was the Busch property, and added that if they do add another property in the City, they would wartt to utilize the credits. With respect to the Busch property, they would be allowed to build senior for-sale housia~g on the 23 acre school site if tihc scl-pool district did not exercise its option. He noted that the district had five months minus one month to decide whether or not they would build schools on that site. Mr. Sweeney advised that their goals of increasing the affordability in the project included meeting the commitment they made to include as many affordable units as possible- In addition, they wished to be sure that they had a project that, when reviewed by the State of California, would score enough points to receive bond financing. He noted that the competition in that field was fierce, and that their project made tlac cut that day with 92.7 points. He noted that projects with 90 points did not receive financing, and added that the number of affordable projects had increased dramatically- PLANNING COMMISSION MIND"i'FS July 9, 2003 Page 17