CCMIN031996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pico indicated the City is paying for street improvements. At the end of the lease period, the City will own the property and the affordable units will continue in perpetuity, so there are major differences between the Promenade project and the Spanos project. Ms. Michelotti asked for a review of the other pwjects in north Pleasanton and the afforclable units. She indicated the rents have remained fairly stable in that time. Mr. Bocian indicated the rents over the last couple of years have been stable. Staff is concerned that there axe a number of units in town, not just in Hacienda, where the growth management agreements are about to expire and the units will be rented at market rate. Staff has begun meeting with the owners of various developments to discuss alternatives. As yet, there is no specific plan to address all issues. Staff is trying to convince the owners it is a positive aspect to maintain the affordable units in their projects. Staff and the new Affordable Housing Commission will be working on this. Ms. Mohr asked if there were any federal tax advantages for holding these units. Mr. Bocian did not believe there was, except in specific projects. There is nothing available from the City. Ms. Mohr indicated that when the other apartment pwjects were reviewed by Council, the very same comments and concerns were raised then as are being raised tonight. She believes that for the anent projects approved then, they have not produced the problems that are of concern. The occupants are normal people. Ms. Dennis thanked all those who spoke for and against this project. She has struggled with the evolution of this pwject. She believes there needs to be counterbalancing for open space and recreational amenities. The community park is no longer an option; however, she is concerned for the quality of life for the residents in the area. It distressed her that dedication of three acres on this project would cost rental units. She supports affordable housing in the area. She wanted to replan all of Lot 60 so there is no remnant piece. It was moved by Ms. Dennis, tO deny the application without prejudice so R can come forward for redesign of all of Lot 60, to keep 25% of the units as affordable and use the park obligation fees on site or immediately around it. The motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Tarver stated that when the rezoning was approved for Hacienda Business Park, he envisioned a benefit to the community and now he does not feel that is happening as he wanted. Unless there are significant changes to the current proposal he cannot support it. He did not feel there was enough park space for what has been appwved to date. He did not want to pay $500,000 an acre to get more park space, when the City only collects $208,000 an acre to buy 03/19/96 -12-