CCMIN12152020 - Laserfiche WebLink

dedicating the right of way for Nevada St. He added he intends to reinvest in the City and offer new state-of-the-art storage and would have planned to build more had it not been for the FAR limitations. Mr. Miranda detailed the three-year chronology of the process with Pleasanton, stating it is the longest he has experienced covering 30 projects over the entire west coast. He detailed several concessions made to gain approval from the Planning Commission, adding that many exceed zoning requirements and codes. He stated it was news to him this is a review and not an appeal initiated by Councilmember Testa. He added they have completely removed the orange despite it being their corporate brand. Mr. Miranda stated his belief allowing Nevada St. to proceed without a legal fight forfeiting revenue is an amenity. He added the omission of the lost revenue during construction is a fundamental flaw by EPS. He also decried several other components of the cost analysis, including inadequate financing costs. He showed slides of how the project has evolved at the City's behest. Mr. Miranda discussed the Affordable Housing Fee, stating the base fee assumes 414 employees instead of three, and added he was willing to assume five for a cushion. He added even their largest facilities around the country have no more than six or seven employees. He noted the two Pleasanton precedents for reducing the fee from 1997 and 2002 used an assumption of one employee per 600 square feet and not the current standard of 400 square feet. Tamsen Plume, Executive Partner at Holland & Knight's San Francisco office, stated her disagreement with City Attorney Sodergren and her belief the City's Affordable Housing Fee is subject to the Mitigation Fee Act. She added the current fee has no relationship to the Public Storage project due to its small number of employees and having a caretaker housed on-site. She cited legal precedents referred to by the city relating to residential projects as opposed to industrial ones. She also noted the City's code lists self-storage as a specific example of a time when the fee can be reduced. Ms. Plume echoed Mr. Miranda in stating her surprise in the item being presented as new instead of the continuation of Councilmember Testa's appeal. City Attorney Sodergren stated the staff report indicates it is being brought to the Council under the review provisions of Section 18.144.010. Councilmember Testa stated she has had multiple conversations with the applicant, assessing the conversations as good. In response to Councilmember Narum's inquiry, Carrick Boshart, Director of Commercial Architecture at Ware Malcomb, clarified the roof slopes within the revised form of architecture are at 10 and 12. He stated it wasn't an effort to fit the roof within the 40-foot maximum code but more of a matter of what the architectural style called for. He added the roof slopes also strengthen the corners of the building. Mr. Boshart addressed Mayor Brown's earlier question by stating the roof alterations do not remove the parapet. In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, Patrick Costanzo, CEO and President of PCJ Real Estate Advisors, confirmed the deciduous trees have been changed to evergreens to provide better visual shielding of the building. In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, Mr. Costanzo clarified the version of the renderings with a flat roof was shown as an alternative should Council choose to go in that direction. In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, Mr. Miranda acknowledged Public Storage's delays in responding to the City contributed to the three-year timeline. He clarified his statements intended to demonstrate the extensive back-and-forth between the group and they were not meant as a criticism of City Council Minutes Page 10 of 17 December 15, 2020