SR 06:263 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT ATTACHMENT E 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 parking spaces were built and that the parking requirements at that time were the same as they are 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 language to provide flexibility in that regard and reads as follows: "The City Council may also waive particular requirements of this chapter or any other section of the Code if it finds that meeting a particular requirement would cause an undue hardship or if the conversion, despite the failure to meet all the requirements, is consistent with the General Plan, any specific plan policies, and the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, and conforms to the purposes of this chapter." She believed the City Council could weigh the parking issue in that situation. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Olson regarding whether it was State law that 25 percent of all new housing be affordable to low- and very-low-income households, Mr. Bocian replied that it was not. Commissioner Olson noted that the moderate-income household was left out of that guideline. Mr. Bocian noted that the City's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance was directed towards very-low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Because the Condominium Conversion Ordinance was linked to the Inc1usionary Zoning Ordinance, staff decided to retain those three income levels. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding whether it would be acceptable for developers to propose that 25 percent ofthe units be affordable to moderate-income households, Mr. Bocian replied that they typically do. Commissioner Blank inquired why the Ordinance did not specify that a minimum number of units, within 25 percent, must be affordable to low- or very-low-income households. Mr. Bocian believed the reason was the variability in economics on different projects, especially with new development with different funding sources. If the developer could not afford that, the City may decide that the proposed affordable housing allocation within the project would meet the intent of the Ordinance. Commissioner Blank believed it sent the wrong message not to have at least one very-low- and one low-income unit. Commissioner Olson agreed with Commissioner Blank's comments. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Pearce regarding the cities examined by staff to develop this Ordinance, Mr. Bocian replied that staff looked at a number of cities, including Berkeley, Dublin, and Santa Monica. DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 18, 2006 Page 2 of9