PC 08/27/86 - Laserfiche WebLink

Minutes August 27, 1986 Planning Commission Finally she strongly urged that a staff position be created to implement the low and very low income housing programs. Ben Fernandez, 2385 Sandpiper Way, represented the Chamber of Commerce Housing Subcommittee. He spoke in support of the adoption of the Community Facilities Alternative (CFA) on the Residential General Plan Review. He presented a letter in support of his statement. He also urged that the City look at the residential development fees and modify the growth management program as well. Don Rolph, Land Use Planner, TMI Properties. Policy 14, page II-19, asked that an "urban reserve" section be changed to a specific plan. He complimented staff for preparing a well-thought out plan. Ted Fairfield, Consulting Civil Engineer, Pleasanton, complimented staff's job on the General Plan and EIR. He noted that inasmuch as 'density bonus' doesn't appear in the new General Plan, by its absence is eliminated from City policy. Mr. Fairfield took exception to the proposed definition of "gross acres."Mr. Fairfield felt that as proposed the City is dealing a "double whammy" to developers. He asked that 'gross acres' be redefined to include everything which is not owned by a public agency. Commissioner Inner commented that although the 25% bonus was deleted, the language contained in other areas of the General plan does in fact allow density bonuses. Mr. Lee indicated that as written now, one would only get credit for the developable portions shown on the map. Commissioner Innes then asked as an example, if someone had a low density residential piece of land and wanted PUD, whether or not they would be eligible for a bonus under the PUD as long as proper amenities were furnished? Mr. Swift explained that for Medium Density, with a 2-9 DU/acre range and a 5 DU/acre "trget," which can become 9 DU/acre with a PUDD, the 2-8 units pser acre with 25% increase allowed has been deleted from the plan. Commissioner Innes stated the amenities referred to by staff relate to clusters of units and leaving open space. Commissioner Inner stated that in this community the PUD is rapidly becoming an overused function. It was originally done to allow something unique within the parcel. The City is almost always giving density bonuses now - why not increase the maximum density? Ted Fairfield, stated the major policy change being put forth is that of the collector streets, arroyos and other facilities not being included in "gross acres." Also, there is a need for a 'grandfather clause'. There are a number of PUDs which may or may not fall within the criteria proposed in this amendment. Mr. Lee indicated that staff has proposed language for that which will be discussed later. - 4 -