My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN030706
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
CCMIN030706
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:43 AM
Creation date
3/3/2006 9:03:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/7/2006
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN030706
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
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 />Mr. Thorne believed staff was asking Council to do what made sense and not try and <br />interpret what the previous Council did. <br /> <br />Mr. Bocian said that was correct. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern asked if the City purchased additional affordable units on the Ponderosa <br /> <br />site? <br /> <br />Mr. Bocian said the City did not purchase any additional units. When the development <br />came in with 87 units, it was already in excess of the requirements of the Inclusionary Zoning <br />Ordinance. The number of affordable units was increased from 87units up to 138 units. The City <br />agreed to provide a loan to the Developer in order to make more units affordable. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern asked if the value of the IUC's increases as the cost of housing <br />increases? <br /> <br />Mr. Bocian believed so. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern asked if the IUC's would become more valuable if the credits extend to <br /> <br />2016? <br /> <br />Mr. Bocian said he believed that they would. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern asked if the developer could come to Council and state that it had <br />another project in Pleasanton and ask to use these IUC's on that development? She also asked <br />if Council could agree and not require the developer to use them on the Busch property? <br /> <br />Mr. Bocian said yes. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern asked if the developer could return to Council in 2009 and request <br />additional time? <br /> <br />Mr. Bocian said yes. <br /> <br />Mayor Hosterman invited public comments. <br /> <br />Mark Sweeney, representing Ponderosa Homes, reminded Council that it spent a <br />significant amount of time on this issue over a period of two years. On November 2, 2004, <br />Council approved what the developer believed was consistent with Mr. Brozosky's recollection. <br />The developer believed it was granted five years from the date that PUSD either closed escrow <br />or otherwise terminated its option. He noted that Ponderosa Homes did not expect to be able to <br />use the I UC's until 2016. If the PUSD exercises its option in May 2008, it would not have to pay <br />for the property or close escrow for 2.5 years, which could allow the credits to be used five <br />years from that point. Ponderosa Homes is only asking for five years from the date the PUSD <br />exercises its option. Ponderosa Homes would be willing to modify the provision to state that if in <br />May of 2008, if PUSD exercises its option, it triggers the developer's five-year timeframe for use <br />of those credits with the potential use of those credits elsewhere in Pleasanton so that the last <br />date would be May 2013. The reason this is so important to Ponderosa Homes is because in <br />November 2004, Council imposed upon the developer a priority to use these credits on the <br />Busch property. Ponderosa Homes interpreted that to mean that if it presented another project <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council <br />Minutes <br /> <br />15 <br /> <br />03/07/06 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.