CCMIN031996 - Laserfiche WebLink

the park land. He felt it was necessary to dedicate additional land to get the park land necessary. Ms. Michelotti did not like having the issues regarding the Spanos project be mixed up by park discussions. She was on the Planning Commission when the existing apartment complexes were appwved. Some of the reasons they were appwved was because of affordability and traffic. The idea was to live and work in the same community. She appreciated those who supported the project because it was good for Pleasanton. Ms. Michelotti felt she had to make decisions for the betterment of the entire community. She was dislEssed by the comments from recent residents who don't want anyone else to move here. Many people who moved here years ago had a vision for the community to grow. The 100 acre Sports Park in the north Pleasanton area was not improved when she moved here. Now there have been five phases of the Sports Park and that has happened as new residents arrive. This project will have 25 % affordable units for thirty years and will supply residents for the children of residents and other young people. Most people live in rental units before they buy a home. Ms. Michelotti has driven through the area and reviewed the design, etc. This property is ideal for this project. The Robertson Homes project was approved before the Valencia project. PleasanWn will not have many opportunities to create apartment housing. The city is becoming built out and the land is not available, although there may be some units on the San Francisco property. Ms. Michelotti stated that for the zoning on the property, the location, etc. she supported this project. It is better than many in North Pleasanton already. She indicated the city has a chance to buy 6.6 acres for a park and hated to think the City will lose another opportunity to buy land and have it improved immediately. There are plans for a bridge to cwss the arroyo so the park will be accessible. Ms. Mohr commented on the architectural style and felt it was suitable for the area. At the time the large apartment projects were being presented to the City, there was a window of economic opportunity for builders to get the necessary loans. She supported those projects because she did not think that kind of window would come again for a long time. For the north part of Pleasanton, she feels this is the last chance for this type of project. She feels the design is appropriate. She liked the mixed use back in 1981 and it is finally happening. This location is suitable and those most likely to be served are the support personnel, secretaries, teachers, etc. and it makes good sense to have them be close to their employment. She heard support for the additional three acres of park land for a Wtal of almost ten acres of neighborhood park. She also felt the resistance to the apartments could be met be dropping the density. She agreed with Ms. Dennis that she hated to lose units. If this project is dehyed even a couple of months for a redesign, it may not be able to find financing. She does not want to lose this opportunity. This project would allow Pleasanton to meet the ABAG requirements for housing units in that price range and she believes all would benefit. She believed the closer employees are to their work, the better. It was moved by Ms. Mohr to approve the project, require that three acres be dedicated for park purposes and reduce the size of the project by approximately 70 units. 03/19/96 -13-