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

Chairperson Casey had questions concerning foot traffic from the office buildings going through the residential area to the retail area. Mr. Leon advised that the design was done in such a manner to provide corner activity. He also advised Chairperson Casey that some parking would be surface and residential buildings would have parking garages and lower-level parking. Becky Dennis, Citizens for a Caring Community-reviewed with the Commission a letter she had presented on behalf of Citizens for a Caring Community(CCC). She noted that CCC has a number of issues regarding approval of the draft agreement with Pleasanton Partners particularly with the application of Pleasanton's IZO to high density development on land zoned solely for the purpose of meeting the city's mandated need for affordable housing, and with the precedent that this agreement would represent. Ms. Dennis noted that Pleasanton has always required a higher level of affordability, either through more units or lower rents, in apartment developments in Hacienda as compared to the proposed agreement with Pleasanton Partners, citing Archstone Hacienda as an example. She felt that approving the agreement would set a precedent that would severely diminish the City's future ability to meet affordable housing needs. The Commission was also advised by Ms. Dennis that CCC believes that the application of the IZO would be a serious impediment to meeting Pleasanton's need for workforce housing affordable to those in the community who earn 80% AMI or below. She asked the Commission to give consideration to alternative approaches suggested during the Housing Element update process, such as requiring developers on recently zoned high density sites lo partner with a nonprofit housing developer. The Commission was urged by Ms. Dennis to also convey her concerns on to the Planning Commission and City Council. Commissioner Butler discussed with Ms. Dennis the recommendation she made for developers to partner with nonprofit groups. Chairperson Casey closed the meeting for public comment at 8:12 p.m. Commissioner Probert felt the proposal was striking because the property is currently an eyesore. He felt it contained a number of good elements but was concerned that it fell short of meeting the affordable housing needs in Pleasanton. Commissioner Probert felt there was a need for more low and very low income units and that approving the agreement would set a precedent for the City. He thought perhaps the nexus study that the Commission was waiting for would provide additional information that would help the Commission make a decision. Commissioner Butler echoed the sentiments of Commissioner Probert. He felt that the City was giving too much and not receiving enough in return. Commissioner Butler did not feel the Commission should approve the 15% and was not sure the approach presented produced what the Commission was looking for. He did not believe waiving fees and giving up on the number of units would be acceptable to this Commission. Commissioner Mermelstein echoed Commissioner Butler's comments and those of Ms. Dennis and felt more needed to be included in the proposal for it to be accepted by this Commission. Page- 4-