CCMIN120109 - Laserfiche WebLink

financing gaps of $2.8 million and $160,000 respectively. Phase 1 financing options include a combination of 9% tax credits, the transfer of Pleasanton Gardens' 31 Section 8 units, and application for additional Section 8 units. Phase 2 would pursue an HUD -202 program which is designed to provide capital funds to elderly housing projects and are typically accompanied by 4% tax credits. He noted that the HUD -202 Program oftentimes includes a Project Rental Assistance Contract to provide additional operating subsidies. The Pleasanton Gardens MOU is a summary of the contributions required from both the City and Pleasanton Gardens. It ensures the transfer of Pleasanton Gardens' tenants to the new development, HUD Section 8 rent subsidies for 31 units, and the site itself following the relocation of all tenants. The agreement is contingent upon the construction of 150 new units and the Pleasanton Gardens board has indicated that the model presented this evening is acceptable. The City of Pleasanton would retain ownership of the Kottinger site and lease the property to the limited partnership owning the development, but the City would retain significant control in terms of rents and operations. The MOU stresses that current rent levels of existing tenants should be retained and allows staff to pursue Council direction regarding future use of the Pleasanton Gardens site. Mr. Bocian reviewed the outstanding issues associated with project although noted again that many cannot be addressed until a facility design is presented. He said that the local neighborhood has been very much involved with the project and identified concerns related to parking, noise, visual impacts, density in terms of neighborhood suitability, and a lack of development plans for the Pleasanton Gardens site. Rich Caldwell, HKIT Architects, thanked everyone involved for their work thus far. He said that one of the first goals identified with this project was to ensure that it did not create a condition where the site could be used as a cross traffic venue between Kottinger Drive and Vineyard Avenue. He noted that all 3 alternatives presented have access from both streets, yet lead into singular and segregated parking areas interrupted by the building itself so as to be convenient without overwhelming. Each design uses a quarter based, double loaded single bedroom unit design accessed from the interior of the building which allows the ability to access any other unit in the building without being exposed to the elements. Each alternative also incorporates a community facility which would include a lobby, meeting rooms, and service areas totaling approximately 3,000 square feet. Mr. Caldwell provided an overview of the 3 alternatives. Alternative A uses the community facility as a bridge to the upper two residential levels, which step down in height as the perimeter is reached. This option is sited so that the building itself never forms a solid wall towards any exposure by interspersing mass with deep pockets of landscaping and open space and is also setback from Kottinger Drive by approximately 150 feet. Alternative B utilizes the same basic footprint and circulation but shifts the 3 story element towards the park and away from the creek and adjacent homes. This alternative also studied the relocation of the community facility to its own location, thereby reducing the structure's height to 2 stories. Alternative C connects all 3 stories as a single entity and is the most affordable option in terms of construction costs. In this option, the building is pushed up against the property line adjacent from an empty lot and larger apartment buildings. Vice -Mayor Cook- Kallio requested clarification on the area identified for additional tree planting. Mr. Caldwell referred to several slides and explained that because of the elevation change between the structure itself and homes along the creek on Kottinger Drive, a tree line is recommended to extend across the slope. City Council Minutes Page 5 of 16 December 1, 2009