PC 101806 - Laserfiche WebLink

,--~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding the current vacancy rate in Pleasanton, Mr. Bocian replied that he did not know but believed it was more than five percent. At Commissioner Blank's request, he described the difference between very-low-, low-, and moderate--income households. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regazding whether there was an anti-flip provision, Mr. Bocian confirmed that was the case for the affordable units but not for the market units. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O'Connor regarding whether there was a gazage requirement for condominiums, Mr. Bocian noted that he believed that was a Planning question. Ms. Decker noted that the Parking Ordinance stated that approved condominiums must have at least two pazking spaces and that one must be covered. However, if a project were to be approved under a different set of requirements or converted, whatever was approved at that time would be allowed. Ms. Harryman advised that there was a provision in this proposed Ordinance (,,,, (Section 17.04.040.a.3., page 4) that stated, "Pazking shall be provided according to standazds established for condominiums by Chapter 18.88 of this Code, or, in the event the project was approved initially as a common interest development, pazking requirements set forth in the project's approval." Ms. Decker described the calculations for various iterations based on number of bedrooms. In addition, one guest space per seven units must be provided. The current Code requires that for all of those conditions, at least one space must be located in a garage or carport. Acting Chairperson Fox inquired whether the Planning Commission may recommend revisions to the Ordinance and have staff bring the revised Ordinance back to the Commission for recommendation to the Council. Mr. Bocian noted that this Ordinance did not impact parking requirements for condominiums, which was set forth in the Code. There would be no changes made to those areas of the Code. The preferred action by the Commission is to recommend approval or denial of the Ordinances and to provide comments related to that action. Ms. Harryman noted that Exhibit D listed the number of units. She added that to assume a parking deficit would assume that only the minimum number of pazking spaces were built and that the pazking requirements at that time were the same as they aze today. She noted that was difficult to assess and did not believe there would automatically be a ~^ deficit. If a deficit were to exist, the current Ordinance (Section 8, 17.04.080, page 7) has PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 18, 2006 Page 12 of 22