CCMIN021610 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ayes: Councilmembers Cook- Kallio, McGovern, Sullivan, Thorne, Mayor Hosterman Noes: None Absent: None Ms. Seto stated that under the Elections Code, any author of the direct argument has the ability to defer to someone else to draft and sign the rebuttal argument in their place, provided they continue to comply with the requirement prohibiting more than three Councilmembers from writing them. 12. Approve the Principles of Agreement between the City, Kottinger Place Task Force and the Pleasanton Gardens Board of Directors regarding a recommendation to continue the development process for a new low income senior development at 240 Kottinger Drive Councilmember McGovern noted the late hour and asked if action on this item is required tonight. Mr. Fialho confirmed. Mr. Fialho provided a brief history of recent events regarding the Council's direction to staff and the Kottinger Place Task Force. In December 2009 the task force brought forward a predevelopment report for the potential to construct up to 150 units at Kottinger Place, but there was not agreement in terms of what that report recommended. Staff has since attempted to capture the general scope of the Council's comments, has met with the task force and Pleasanton Gardens Board of Directors and has attempted to establish a framework for moving the project forward within the stated objectives. It was acknowledged that redevelopment of Kottinger Place is supported at a density ranging between 128 and 150 units but also that additional due diligence in terms of options for that density should be conducted. It was also determined that additional analysis regarding rehabilitation of the City's facility and /or of Pleasanton Gardens under the City's ownership is warranted. Mr. Fialho stated that in order to accomplish that, staff is requesting direction to release an RFQ for the selection of a non profit developer to assist with site plans and options, identification of initial and ongoing costs associated with each, and various financing options as well as timeline for assessing these options. He stated that nothing in the document implies entitlement or authorization to proceed with final project approvals. Should the Council approve the document, the RFQ process would begin immediately and staff would return to the Council with a request for approval of a selected non profit developer. He noted plans not reflected in the staff report that would bring staff before the Council in March with a proposal that the Council identify a subcommittee of two individuals to participate in this effort with the task force. Councilmember Sullivan asked when the Council could expect to get information out of this process. Assistant City Manager Steve Bocian anticipated that staff would need approximately three months before returning to the Council for selection of a developer, followed by another 45 days for contractual agreements before any work is initiated. He said staff will ultimately have to determine whether to bring pieces of the information back to the Council or wait to present the complete picture. Mr. Fialho said one benefit of establishing a Council subcommittee to participate is that it can assist staff in determining the best way to disseminate the information. Referring to the 3 bulleted item which discusses a range of 128 to 150 units, Councilmember McGovern requested the addition of language that identifies that as one option. She said she is unwilling to commit to supporting that range but does support studying it further. She said she City Council Minutes Page 10 of 15 February 16, 2010