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 developer maintains that the Council's action required that the entire development, all initial <br />363 units plus any new units collectively, have a level of affordability that is not less than 24%. <br />The developer maintains that this is important because it meets the intent of Council action and <br />at this level of affordability, the IUC's may be sufficient to meet the total affordability <br />requirement on the 23-acre site. If the affordability requirement is higher, IUC may be <br />insufficient to meet all IZO requirements for the site, Further, because applying the 24% to the <br />entire development reduces the number of IUC's required on the 23-acre site, the developer may <br />have IUC's available after development of this site to use on another site, <br /> <br />To justify its position, the developer references the November 2, 2004 staff report that indicates <br />"A total of 51 mc's may be applied to a development on the 23-acre PUSD optioned site <br />provided the total ratio of affordable housing for the entire 363-unit development and any <br />subsequent units will have a minimum of 24% affordable units," In addition, the developer <br />indicates that the draft Amendment #1 included with the November 2,2004 staff report indicates <br />a requirement that the entire development must be 24% affordable. In discussions with the <br />developer, staff recognized the potential confusion with these two sections. However, it has <br />maintained that they are not necessarily inconsistent because the goal was to inform the Council <br />that in no event would there be less than 24% affordability on the site and requiring 24% <br />affordability on the PUSD optioned site assures this situation. Further, because the City Council <br />did not approve all of staff's recommendation at the November 2, 2004 meeting, many changes <br />were made to the Amendment # 1 to reflect Council action. <br /> <br />An illustration of the impact of this issue is noted in the table below. <br /> <br />SUMMARY OF IMPACT OF AFFORDABLILITY RE UlREMENTS <br />Assuming 125 Senior Single Family Units on the City Ponderosa <br />23-acre PUSD 0 tioned Site <br />Number of Affordable Units Re uired* 30 25 <br />mc's Re uired to Meet Affordabilit Re uirements** 45 37 <br />Remainin mc's *** 6 14 <br /> <br />* Assumes 24% for "City" column and 20% (Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance requirement) for the <br />"Ponderosa" column <br />"" Assumes single family senior units <br />"""Depending on when these units are developed and Council action on Item #1 above, these IUC's may be <br />used to meet IZO affordability requirements for another development, <br /> <br />As indicated, staff has had numerous discussions with the developer on this matter and both <br />parties have produced significant information attempting to clarify and substantiate its position, <br />The developer's letter dated September 23,2005 (Attachment 2) and the November 2,2004 staff <br />report are attached for your reference. Regardless of these discussions and the paper trail <br />leading up to this situation, staff is requesting the Council "revisit" this issue and make a <br />decision on these two issues. Staff is not asking the Council to reconsider its decision on the <br />granting of credits or the three items noted above, about which there is no disagreement. To <br />address this situation, staff is recommending the Council consider two options as noted below, <br />SR:06:076 <br />Page 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.