CCMIN12152020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Nancy Allen clarified her vote against the project on the Planning Commission was specifically due to the bright orange and neighborhood compatibility in the building design. She stated she fully supports the revised building design. She thanked Councilmember Testa, Public Storage, and staff for collaborating to enhance the building design. She stated she finds the amenity value appropriate but would like to see different approaches discussed in a public forum because the Planning Commission regularly struggles with this component. Ms. Allen asked the Council, for direction on future projects, if this sort of project triggers a reduced Affordable Housing Fee, should a project with higher than average employees trigger an increased fee. In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, City Manager Fialho confirmed this is not a City policy specifically for the Affordable Housing Fee but it is not the case in other areas such as the Traffic Impact Fee. He added other communities have a similar policy in regards to their Affordable Housing Fees. Herb Ritter expressed personal concerns about the process through which the City handles business projects based on the staff report for this project. He noted the applicant has been working for years with the staff and Planning Commission, along with taking community input, resulting in a 4-1 vote in favor of the project. He criticized the external staff review which misrepresented the project and appears to be discouraging businesses from investing in Pleasanton. He encouraged a joint Council and Planning Commission workshop out of courtesy to the applicant should Council elect to take this course of action in the future. Narendranadh Bondalapati echoed the concerns of his fellow neighbors over the project with the addition of squatters. Jocelyn Combs expressed her belief the full Affordable Housing Fee could benefit the City and set a bad precedent for other industrial facilities looking to build in Pleasanton. She stated her support for the historical precedent reduction levels (option 2). Mr. Miranda stated a traffic report found the impact will be minimal and the lighting will not be dissimilar to the existing lighting. He clarified they would be supportive of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) analysis despite it not having a direct correlation or nexus to the number of employees. Mr. Costanzo clarified the houses which abut the western edge of the property are landscaped by the individual owners so they can screen the area. He confirmed Public Storage cannot landscape this area because of the need for vehicular circulation. In response to Ms. Plume's inquiry, City Attorney Sodergren stated he has nothing to add to the legal advice he provided to Council earlier in the meeting in regards to the appeal and review procedures as outlined in Section 18.144.010. Mayor Brown closed the public hearing. Mayor Brown bifurcated the item into separate items for the project approval and the Affordable Housing Tax reduction. In response to Councilmember Testa's inquiry, Associate Planner Campbell stated her belief the front of the facility has more extensive planting planned than in the diagram currently being viewed showing only grass. She noted that painting the front columns to match the rest of the structure can be added as a condition of approval. City Council Minutes Page 12 of 17 December 15, 2020