My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 06:076
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2006
>
SR 06:076
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/23/2007 4:26:50 PM
Creation date
3/3/2006 9:20:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
3/7/2006
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 06:076
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
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
<br />the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance which was scheduled to take place as part of the General <br />Plan review process. This review occurred on June 23, 2004 as part of a joint meeting <br />between the City Council and the Planning Commission, and as an outcome of that <br />review, the Council adopted a resolution establishing guidelines (Attachment 3) for reviewing <br />requests for IUC's, <br /> <br />The City Council reviewed Ponderosa's request for IUC's on November 2,2004 and approved <br />an Amendment #1 to the Affordable Housing Agreement granting 51 mc's and establishing <br />affordability requirements for the development on the 23-acre site optioned to the Pleasanton <br />Unified School District (PUSD), Upon receiving the Amendment #1, Ponderosa informed the <br />City that it disagreed with staff's interpretation of City Council action and requested changes to <br />the Amendment. Staff reviewed the matter and met with the developer on a number of <br />occasions but was unable to resolve the differences. At the request of the City Manager, the City <br />Attorney reviewed all available material, including a review of the City Council meeting <br />videotape. Although the City Attorney found some inconsistencies between the discussion at <br />the City Council meeting and the City Council staff report, he determined that Amendment # I <br />was reflective of City Council action and the information in the City Staff report, Staff again <br />met with the developer who requested the matter be forwarded to the City Council. As a result, <br />this matter is before the Council for action. <br /> <br />DISCUSSION <br /> <br />As indicated in the attached November 2, 2004 staff report (Attachment 5) and City Council <br />minutes (Attachment 4), there were numerous options presented and discussed regarding the <br />granting of mc's for this project. However, after some lengthy discussion, the City Council <br />took action approving the use ofIUC's and based on that action, staff modified the Amendment <br /># I (Attachment I) that was included with the November 2 staff report to reflect City Council <br />action. Ponderosa maintains that some of these amendments are not reflective of Council action <br />and/or inconsistent with its request for mc's, The terms of this Amendment about which there <br />is no disagreement are as follows: <br /> <br />. IUC's can be used only by Ponderosa Homes, or a subsidiary owned by a majority of <br />Ponderosa or exclusively by its Chairman, Kile Morgan, Jr" and cannot otherwise be <br />transferred, <br /> <br />. IUC's may be used on the 23-acre Busch site currently under option with the Pleasanton <br />Unified School District (PDSD). With City Council approval, the mc's could be used on <br />another site, <br /> <br />. IUC's would be applied in accordance with the following ratios: <br />>- If used on a multi-family development: I IDC for each affordable unit required, <br />>- Ifused for a condo/townhome: 1,5 IDC's for each affordable unit required. <br /> <br />SR:06:076 <br />Page 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.