18 ATTACHMENT 1-4; 6-9 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT Chair Blank inquired if this would be one of the things staff could work out with the applicant by the time the project goes to City Council. Commissioner Posson agreed. He noted that Condition No. 10 uses the phrase "...are encouraged to use reclaimed gray water..." and recommended that it be changed to "...shall use reclaimed gray water" and then add "where available" at the end to tie it in to that purple pipe program. Mr. Dolan replied that would be fine. John Casey stated that he is not speaking as a member of the Housing Commission, that his comments are his own and would like the Planning Commissioners to take them in context. He noted that Exhibit D of the staff report is the agenda items from the Housing Commission but that the Meeting Minutes for the February and March meetings are missing some of the local flavor. Mr. Casey stated that the Housing Commission had some challenges reviewing the proposal at two successive meetings. He noted that at their February discussion when they reviewed Option 1, they tabled the item and asked staff to re-engage with the applicants to come up with other options, and Option 2 was provided. He indicated that what was given to the Commission in the March meeting was an either/or Option 1/Option 2. He added that they also looked at other options to see if there was a general consensus. He stated that they rejected both options based on The level of affordability and the number of units. He pointed out that one option provides additional affordability, and the other option provides additional units. He stated that part of the reasoning for that was that other projects in the vicinity had provided more affordability in terms of units and the level of affordability. He added that the Hacienda guidelines also came into play. Mr. Casey stated that there is a policy vacuum for the Housing Commission in this area, and without an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and a firm policy, what is left is five well-meaning Commissioners trying to determine what the right number is. He compared it to making them all Goldilocks figuring out when the porridge is just right. He indicated that it was difficult to get some consensus during the discussions, and what they did was essentially rejected the item. He stated that Steve Bocian polled the Commissioners afterwards, and there were two Commissioners who were willing to support Option 1; none were willing to support Option 2. Pat Belding, speaking for Citizens for a Caring Community (CCC), a housing advocacy, affordable housing group, stated that they supports the Housing Commission's finding that neither Option 1 nor Option 2 of the proposal is satisfactory because of the lack of affordability. She indicated that there is no need to rush approval of this project when it does not fit into the affordability standards so painstakingly crafted in the Housing Element. She noted that this is an anchor property in Pleasanton and questioned why all the entitlements on it are being given away when it is these very values that they have spent months and years working out. She stated the CCC sees great benefit to be DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 3/27/2013 Page 12 of 22