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

DRAFT Mr. Sowell then raised several questions: Where would shoppers at the retail on the corner of Rosewood Drive and Owens Drive park, and has parking been considered so the shoppers do not take up the residential parking or do not drive up that middle driveway and discover that there is only residential parking or none at all? Are there any affordable condominiums going into this development so there is a market for new homeowners of modest means not just to rent, but to buy? Is the applicant willing to accept some owner-occupied homes that are built at the 50 percent to SO percent PMI portion of the market, and if so, under what conditions? What percentage of the rooftops will have solar panels, and is the applicant willing to increase the proportion over time? If solar panels were to be required, under what conditions would the applicant agree to that? He once again thanked the developer and staff for their good intentions, especially with regard to affordable housing. Becky Dennis stated that she was here on behalf of Citizens for a Caring Community (CCC). She indicated that she would like to talk about the affordability issue and just how this point was reached in a beautifully designed project in a great location where there is very little affordability compared to the projects around it. She noted that in Pleasanton, the process basically includes reaching out to stakeholders, and this project had none of that. She added that the Housing Commission did not have a workshop that housing advocates could have attended; it was all the developer negotiating and the staff and the developer wanting to fast-track this project with the level of affordability they would determine based on the fact that the City is temporarily without an ordinance. She noted that it is especially ironic because were it not for housing advocates, the developers would not have had the opportunity to develop this site. She pointed out that the City re-zoned these sites at 30+ units to the acre specifically to provide affordability, more opportunity for affordability than there have been in the past, such as the 25 percent affordability at less density in Hacienda. Ms. Dennis stated that it does not make sense that this project can have more density and less affordability. She noted that this is a big site where non-profit housing could be included and the market-rate developer would not have had to include or be supportive of any lower income units. She further noted that this was never an option discussed with the developer because housing advocates, including the Housing Commission, were not at the table. She added that the City has a great Housing Commission, a group of citizens who have been active since 2002 trying to get the City to provide more housing for lower-income people who, when they move to Pleasanton, are going to reduce carbon emissions because they are not going to be commuting from Brentwood or Stockton or Tracy any longer. She indicated that she realizes there is only a limited amount the applicants can do and that she would not ask the applicants to do a great deal; however, they are welcome to do more if they feel like it. Ms. Dennis stated that she is not sure where the Planning Commission is on the issue of setting the standards, but she believes that in the Housing Element, it is the projects with the most affordability that have priority, and this project has the least affordability. She added that she cannot think of any other time when a group of important stakeholders were completely excluded from the process, that the applicant was not DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 3/27/2013 Page 14 of 22