CCMIN101612 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Cook-Kallio noted that net cost across the three options is not as dissimilar as it might initially look. Mr. Bocian stated that in weighing the goals and objectives of the task force against the project, Option 2 is clearly the strongest development alternative. Staff is requesting that the Council select Option 2 as the preferred development approach and direct staff to proceed with Phase II. Abby Goldware, Project Manager with MidPen Housing, described the objectives of the project as follows: • Increase the supply of affordable senior housing; • Retain the existing character of the site; • Achieve financial efficiency and long term sustainability; • Develop a site plan that complements the neighborhood and is compatible to surrounding uses Ms. Goldware provided a PowerPoint presentation that reviewed existing and proposed site plans. She noted that entrances from Vineyard Avenue and Kottinger Drive would be retained with each option. Other consistent features generally include the number of single story homes, parking locations and a stepped multi-story building located in the rear of the site so as to have the least impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Each option also calls for a design that would allow the addition of accessibility features in the future. She briefly reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of each option. Option 1, which calls for rehabilitation of the existing Kottinger units, creates the fewest number of new affordable senior homes. With the addition of Pleasanton Gardens, Option 2 meets the first objective in that it creates the most new affordable senior homes and the third objective in that it presents the most efficient per home cost. Option 3, which is essentially Option 2 without Pleasanton Gardens, creates fewer new homes and is a less efficient use of the City's resources and overall development costs. Mr. Bocian again summarized the staff recommendation. He noted that the Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement approved by the Council in February speaks to the preparation of a disposition and development agreement, which staff would bring back to the Council for approval if it should choose to proceed with Phase II. Staff would also meet with representatives from Pleasanton Gardens to prepare a memorandum of understanding that is modeled more around the work prepared by the task force. The final action requested would be for the Council to set aside $8 million from the Lower Income Housing Fund in a separate project reserve. Councilmember Thorne said he met with staff and MidPen offline regarding the majority of his questions. He said he is particularly concerned with moving the existing older population and asked how staff envisions the relocation process working. Mr. Bocian said the goal is to accommodate the relocations on site though it will be highly dependent upon the level of vacancies that exist at that time. He explained that part of Phase II specifically involves the development of a detailed relocation plan. Councilmember Sullivan asked how staff envisions the future role of the task force as well as the project timeline. Mr. Bocian said he envisioned the task force guiding what would be a very open typical PUD type process and that they would be heavily involved until the project is ultimately approved by the Council. In terms of timing, he hoped to see the project break ground in approximately two years, though this is largely dependent upon the overall design process and how things move along with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. City Council Minutes Page 4 of 12 October 16,2012