PC 032713 - Laserfiche WebLink

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 sent back for some discussions with those stakeholders, which is really consistent with everything it is to be a developer who brings forward a plan in this City. She reiterated that the stakeholders need to be included in the process. She stated that there is no question this is a beautiful project and that they would love them to develop, but this property should be used consistent with the public purpose of its rezoning. Ms. Dennis stated that some delay could be consistent with the policies in the Housing Element. She asked the Commission to recommend to the Council that the project be delayed either until the nexus study is done or until a closer approximation of something that at least meets past standards if not exceeds them is reached, commensurate with the greater amount of entitlements that this property has received compared to the other properties that have provided affordability. She indicated that that would be fair, and they, as well as the Housing Commission, would certainly be willing to engage in that process. She noted that the Housing Commission is their lifeline, and they were basically not allowed a seat at the table, which is not the Pleasanton way. Ms. Dennis stated that they have attached the letters they have sent to the Housing Commission to the staff report so the Planning Commission would have the details of CCC's analysis of the true affordability level compared to what is being proposed here. James Paxson, General Manager of Hacienda Owners Association, stated that they are very pleased with this project. He noted that as the City and the owner of the property have their visions, Hacienda Park also has a vision, and this project fits in with what the Park has been trying to accomplish with all of the planning work that's been conducted over the last 10 to 15 years. He thanked Sares- Regis and RREEF America, LLC for working with the Association, working with its design review committee through the design review process, addressing the comments that came up along the way, and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 27, 2013 Page 39 of 48