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

IZO. Ms. Belding encouraged a delay of this project until the fee nexus study is completed and new standards are in place. Chairperson Casey closed the meeting for public comment at 8:45 p.m. Chairperson Casey discussed comments made by the Commission at the February 21 meeting and reminded Commissioners that they are an advisory board to City Council who ultimately makes the policies. Commissioner Butler asked for clarification regarding zoning and meeting the zoning requirements for the property in questions. He also noted that discussions have been taking place about putting affordable units in the East Pleasanton project. Mr. Bccian provided information about the public process that has been taking place for East Pleasanton. He also provided details regarding state requirements for rezoning of properties and the City's goals for providing affordable housing for specific groups, i.e. restricted rents. He discussed the need to review the Housing Element and determining what goals are being met. Commissioner Welsh discussed the Permit Streamlining Act and its relation to the California Center proposal. Mr. Bocian noted that staff felt it was critical to have an agreement on the affordability component for this project before the development plan is reviewed by the City Council. He further discussed the implications of the Urban Habitat settlerient. Commissioner Welsh questioned whether the developer had been asked to provide any other off-site improvements. Mr. Bocian advised that staff had not spoken to them about this in relation to the affordable housing component. He further discussed the approval process for the recent BRE projects and noted that developers are required to pay specific fees to the City of Pleasanton and to the Pleasanton Unified School District. Commissioner Probed related this discussion to the preceding discussions about the HHSG grants, noting that many of the services that will be funded through the program will serve low and very low income residents while the current proposal proposed a numoer of units at 100% of AMI. Commissioner Lopez would prefer to see a deeper level of affordability in the project and echoed the concerns expressed by Commissioner Probed. Commissioner Welsh felt that funds from the LIHF should be used for low income housing. She suggested an Option 3 that would include buying down the rents for some of the units by using funds from the LIHF possibly through an annuity. Mr. Bocian provided information about similar strategies that were implemented for two recent projects and advised that this generally works when the developer pays a fee instead of providing units. Chairperson Casey felt that there is a wide range of possible options. He discussed staff's timeline for moving forward with this project and its recommendation to approve Option 2. Chairperson Casey noted that an Option 4 would be to table this project until the fee nexus study has been completed. Commissioner Probed noted that waiting until the nexus study had been completed was an idea the Commission presented at the February 21 meeting. Mr. Bocian advised that this is not a viable option at this time because of timing issues with the nexus study. Chairperson Casey discussed with Mr. Bocian the possibility of accelerating the schedule for the study. Page - 2 -