Laserfiche WebLink
provides for inclusionary unit credits and this is an attempt to determine how to address that <br />when a request is received. <br /> <br /> Ms. Hosterman looked forward to reviewing the affordable by design housing <br />concepts. She did understand how housing credits could be allowed without Council <br />maintaining control over what one proiect might look like if credits were sold to another <br />project developer for another project. This represents a nice refinement of the original <br />guidelines. She was more comfortable with the proposal than the original language. She <br />supported the proposal, knowing that Council will review affordable by design options in the <br />future. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky agreed with Mr. MacDonald and was not happy with the inciusionary <br />ordinance. He felt people should be helped up the ladder and the current system takes <br />someone at the bottom and sends them directly to the top. Rental units may be more <br />applicable to Iow or very Iow income households. Not everyone is entitled to ownership. <br />Right now some people are given access to a house in a million dollar neighborhood that <br />should sell for $800,000 and they are allowed to buy it for $200,000. That difference is <br />added to the cost of housing for others in the neighborhood. He did not think that made <br />sense. He would like to see more homes that are affordable by design. The City should <br />decide when it will have subsidized housing and when it will approve really affordably priced <br />housing. He did not think it was possible to codify the exchange of credits. Each project <br />needs to be reviewed individually. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell said he did not know how to solve this problem and he felt there are <br />many communities who do not know either. He appreciated staff's efforts and felt it was <br />worthwhile to at least try this ordinance and see how it works. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala said Ponderosa was the only developer requesting credits and felt it was <br />possible that during the General Plan review, the inclusionary ordinance would be changed <br />and this situation will not occur again. She believed the guidelines included considerable <br />flexibility. Her only concern was with Section 8 because 180 days was not enough time. <br />She would like to extend that time. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bocian said staff recommended 180 days and the Planning Commission <br />recommended reconveyance had to be within 90 days. The idea was that if Council granted <br />credits, did it want a developer to come back years later requesting a transfer? If a <br />developer is to transfer credits, it should be within the historical memory of a particular <br />project and why it was approved. The developer should be able to tell Council to whom the <br />credits would be transferred at the same time it requests the credits. That would be <br />beneficial to Council when it is reviewing the request for credits. If there is no set timeline, <br />the request for transfer may be many years down the road. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky pointed out that by approving a transfer of credits to another developer, <br />it does not obligate Council to approve that new development. Thus, there could be a loss <br />of affordable units, since the other developer may never get a plan approved by Council. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala asked for clarification of how the 180 days affected Ponderosa, since it <br />was the only developer with credits to transfer. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 17 09/21/04 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />