AgdaPkt 2009-05-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Neighborhood Concerns On January 12, 2009 and again on January 26, 2009, the recommendation to approve the afford ability covenants was brought before the Council. There was considerable discussion on the 12th, and staff was asked to notify the neighborhood who had actively participated during the entitlement phase of the project. Although the affordability covenants do not require public notice (already given during the entitlement process), the City did notify 900 neighbors, as a courtesy, about the Jan. 26th meeting on the topic. Two neighbors called staff to discuss their concerns. On January 21 at, a letter expressing their concerns was submitted by the Hampton Oaks Homeowner's Association. At the January 26th meeting several neighbors spoke as well. The following are responses to the concerns that have been raised: 6.1G Page 2 . Notice - The neighbors felt that they had not been adequately noticed. As previously noted above, although there was only two weeks between meetings, staff did send out a mailing to 900 addresses in the neighborhood on January 21st advising them of the meeting on the 26th. Additionally, the developer had been communicating with the neighborhood associations by emait for several weeks regarding this matter. A meeting with key neighborhood representatives was held on February 4, 2009 to answer questions and clarify the intent of this recommendation. Additionally, on April 22, 2009, the developer met with the Hampton Oaks Home Owners Association (HOA) (with about 25 attendees), and on May 5, 2009 with the Enclave HOA (about 15 attendees) to discuss the project status as requested by the City Council. He also contacted the Park Atherton HOA and they simply asked for a written update which the President shared with the group at their meeting on April 30, 2009. The President reported that there were no concerns raised by members. The Kentfield Commons HOA told the developer that they did not feel the need to have him attend their meeting or poll their members, but did invite him to contact individual homeowners if he wished. The majority of the neighbors were positive and have indicated that they are anxious to see the project get back on track and the construction completed. . Variances - The project does not require any variances. Variances are exceptions to the zoning ordinance. In this case, the Precise Plan provides the zoning for this project. The Precise Plan does not mandate rental or ownership housing. The City's general plan and zoning do not distinguish between rental or ownership in residential categories, nor is the City allowed to do so under State law. Any property owner has the right to rent if they desire. a right protected by the State constitution. This right applies to all of the units in this or any condominium development. . . For-sale condominiums - The developer has represented to the City and the community that this will be a for-sale condominium project. To that end, a Final Condominium Map has been prepared and the project .will be built to condominium standards. The developer has reconfirmed his intention to continue with this scenario. However, since the developer will be the owner of each of the 43 units. as noted above, he does have the right to rent them if he cannot sell them in the current market. Renting is only a stopgap measure in the event the housing market is not a viable environment for