PC 062602 - Laserfiche WebLink

- / Regarding affordability, Commissioner Arkin noted that he did not understand the logic of reducing the other City fees, such as the water connection, park, and traffic fees. He noted that the developer would not be paying their fair share. Commissioner Sullivan advised that he supported the implementation of incentives regarding affordable housing, but was uncomfortable with the notion of waiving all fees. He noted that staff was currently reviewing Ponderosa Homes' fee waiver request. He believed that incentives brought benefits to the community, but he did not want to give away too much. He believed that there should be more analysis and negotiation regarding this issue. Commissioner Arkin believed that the fees should not be waived unless they were backfilled from the Low-Income Housing Fund, and that they should not be taken away from someone else. Commissioner Sullivan advised that the Housing Commission action had already been discussed. ,-- Regarding green building, Commissioner Sullivan noted that until the Green Building Ordinance was passed, he would like to move towards meeting those goals with this application. He noted that he would like to see one zero net energy house in the development; Livermore already had one, and he believed that Pleasanton should have one as well. He believed that the City and the developer should work together to meet as many of the Ordinance goals as possible. Commissioner Sullivan remarked that staff asked for direction whether the apartments should follow residential guidelines or Leed. He noted that staff could talk to Alameda County Waste Management about that issue. Regarding park and trail amenities, Commissioner Sullivan inquired why there was a private park/cabana instead of a public facility. Commissioner Roberts noted that it was a private park because it was only two acres, and the City did not want to manage a park that small. In response to Commissioner Sullivan's question regarding the availability of the cabana, Ms. Hardy replied that it was a Homeowners Association owned and maintained facility. It would also be available to all the seniors as well, and that would be reflected in the restructured CC&Rs. ".-. In response to Commissioner Sullivan's question whether the existing residents would be able to use the cabana/pool facilities, Ms. Hardy replied that they were discussing that issue with the surrounding neighborhood. She was surprised that they did not get overwhelming support for a possible membership to the cabana/pool facility. She noted that it was very important that the facilities be walkable, and added that the surrounding residents were very concerned about increased traffic impact if the park were any larger. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 26, 2002 Page 16