PC 032713 - Laserfiche WebLink

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 gained from delaying approval of this large project until a nexus study is done and new standards that everyone must meet are established. She stated that they realize that the Planning Commission is not in the position to make these decisions, but a recommendation to the City Council in this regard would give encouragement to the Housing Commission, community affordable housing advocates, and all those in the City who are waiting for this needed housing, such as store clerks, restaurant staff, teachers, and others for whom they speak. Sean Sowell thanked the applicant for an awesome presentation and staff for their time and effort in preparing a beautiful, very detailed, and very well thought of report. He then inquired how the traffic study addresses both pedestrian and bicycle levels of service. He stated that the only traffic studies he has ever read were designed to make it easier for vehicles, cars, and trucks to get around and through the intersections, and he has never seen a traffic study that answers the question of how this project would make it easier or harder for people on bikes and foot to get around. He commented that WalMart right next door to this planned development is rather atrocious in terms of pedestrian access, one of those you- can't -get- there - from -here situations. He noted that it is not possible to walk on the sidewalk from anywhere on Owens Drive to the front door of WalMart because there are no sidewalks there. He indicated that this is important to him because he does not own a vehicle. He inquired if there are real concrete things that the developer will do to ensure that this new development will have similar problems. Mr. Sowell inquired what the plan was for the northern portion of this parcel, where the only thing he sees is a large parking garage. He inquired if it would be just office and light industrial or residential as well; and if residential, what the proportion of residential would be and what proportion of the residential would be affordable housing, subject to the two options proposed. He also requested that all possible appliances use Energy Star where available, and not just Energy Star with the little yellow tags that barely PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 27, 2013 Page 37 of 48