CCMIN110403 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. McKeehan noted that the first question asked if the City was interested in having the 23-acre property as a park. Stafflooked to see if the property would fit with'un the Master Plan for parks, and because of the size of the property, we determined it would not be a neighborhood park. It would need to be a community park, which is what is most needed on this side of town. It would not, however, have been a popular choice within that neighborhood and the neighborhood would have likely opposed it, given the traffic and lights that center around community parks. The second question asked what would happen if the City purchased the property. The concern was that if the City ultimately took possession of the property, it would not be allowed the opportunity to designate the land for something other than it was originally designated for. At the time of the discussion of the option for the City, Ms. Ayala believed that 320 acres was available on the Bemal site, which would have been adequate for many public uses in the City. In actuality, there are only 160 acres that is developable. She pointed out that of the 40 uses that the community determined for the Bernal property, there is not enough acreage to take care of even 20 uses. Ms. Hosterman stated that she was not comfortable with the language in the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, and believed the matter needed to be revisited. She was concerned about the idea of housing credits, which have value if applied from one development to another. She was concerned that Council would not be able to maintain its ability to decide future projects and know what they will look like. She would like the developer to be allowed the opportunity to take the value they have created on this property and keep it on that property. She proposed terminology that would state whatever is built on that property be deemed a part of the overall project, which maintains the minimum affordability for purposes of meeting the requirements of the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. She stated that she is trying to create a situation where whatever value the developer has been able to create on that property, the credits be maintained and stay with that property. Mr. Bocian believed that Ms. Hosterman was saying that now there is a development that has 363 units, but if the option is not exercised on the 23-acre site, the development would be 150 units more and the affordable units in the apartment project would count as meeting the affordability requirements for the entire development including those additional 100-150 units. Ms. McKeehan pointed out that the current number of units is deemed to be Ponderosa's entire requirement for the entire property. She mentioned that the Housing Commission had talked about wanting to allow for the transferability. Ms. Hosterman believed it was a risk benefit analysis, which might provide more flexibility, but also might also take some flexibility away from the City's ability to designate land use in the future. Ms. Ayala believed the complication was with the School District's option and how it would affect the District, as there is a built-in incentive for the developer. Pleasanton City Council 7 11/4/03 Minutes