PC 081413 - Laserfiche WebLink

the PUSD Board in the mid- 1990's, there was kind of a disconnect between the City and the District. He noted that this has been totally turned around and that he cannot say enough about the time City staff spend with District personnel, that he has never seen a better working relationship. He added that they have come a long way in a very short time, especially since it is difficult to understand the school law that schools cannot be built until the children show up, which makes planning extremely critical. He indicated that this is where the City's Planning staff has really earned their stripes and then some, and that he wanted to publicly acknowledge the City Planning's help and assistance with the District. He stated that the District and Pleasanton Gateway already have an agreement in principle, subject to PUSD Board approval possibly at its September 10`h meeting. He added that the agreement with California Center will come before the District Board on August 20`h, and BRIE will be in place by the next month as well. He indicated that this is all incredible and thanked everyone for all their help. Acting Chair Olson thanked Mr. Kernan for his comments. He noted that the City has had a long history with the District and hearing positive comments from him is very good. Sean Sowell thanked Acting Chair Olson and the Commission for creating the process for public comment. He stated that he wanted to speak on a couple of items. He indicated that he spoke at the May 22, 2013 Planning Commission Work Session for this project with some concerns and thanked staff for keeping the present bus stop in its existing location rather than moving it. He then read from the Minutes of that Work Session, noting that he is not familiar with how the negotiation process worked between staff and the developer of a previous project and that Options A, B, and C showing the different kinds of proposed units came later in the process rather than as part of the original packet. He added that he noted then that it deprived the public the opportunity to review those materials before the meeting and that it was inconsistent with the Brown Act and also with City policy. He stated that he asked at that time that the process be adjusted accordingly so anybody could look at the entire project and at the affordable housing proposal. He thanked staff and the developer because the Affordable Housing Agreement is part of this packet. Mr. Sowell then referred to the third page of Exhibit J of the staff report which shows that 32 units are being proposed as part of the Affordable Housing Agreement. He indicated that he objected to the affordable unit mix as well as the total number of units. He stated that he thinks the language "provide 32 units (15% of the total rental units)" is not correct and should be changed to 46 units, which is 15 percent of the total units, including the single family units. He indicated that he thinks this is not an oversight but a policy decision and a proposed decision by the developer that is in error. He stated that if he carried the logic forward, that is an additional 12 units total. He continued that if the same allocation as given in the current table were kept, starting with the 50- percent AMI column, which includes nine one - bedroom units, six two- bedroom units, and one three - bedroom unit, adding the 12 units in a ratio consistent with that would result in an additional three one - bedroom units, two two- bedroom units, and two three - bedroom units, for a total of 23 units instead of 16. He added that if the 80- percent PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 14, 2013 Page 5 of 17