CCMIN060600 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Dennis asked about the length of time for the affordability, i.e. 55 years versus perpetuity. Mr. Slajchert responded that this is a tax credit requirement and at no time ~vonid the owners be able to change the affordability component prior to 55 years. After that time, there is the opporlunity to make changes. Cotmcilmember Michelotti asked about the statement in the staff report concerning the non-conformance of the project. On the original application, meals were required three times per day and she questioned if that is still part of the application. Mr. Slajchert replied that it is how the project was described and it is still part of the project. It is in the conditions of approval to the extent that it incorporates all of the parts of the application. The whole plan was built around what is essentially a retirement hotel, not independent living. The parking requirement. the kind of kitchen facilities provided, the downstairs meeting area and the larger kitchen were designed to provide meals as part of the project. Mr. Slajchert agreed and said the project proposes to provide meals. Hc would like the ability to sit down and work with staff on what he thinks is a program that meets the conditions of approval but also is appropriate for the project from a tinancial standpoint. That is part of what he has not had an opportunity to do at this time. He feels that these issues can be resolved. Cindy Wall, P.O. Box 10396, Pleasanton, representing Gold Creek Townhouses, is the property manager for the Association. She discussed some concerns about the property development and the experience the residents have had with this piece of property. The first post card that was sent out to the homeowners of Gold Creek two months ago and residents asked if she knew of the plans for the property's development. She did not. A meeting was set with Heidi Klinc and they met and received a copy of the plans and brought the information back to the homeowners. At the same time she asked Ms. Klein to set up a meeting with the developer and the owner of the property so that the homeowners could voice their concerns about the property being developed. This meeting has never taken place and no fttrther con~n~unications from the City or anyone ClSC has taken place. Last evening a note was put on everyone's doorstep indicating that an itom was going to be put on the agenda tonight to discuss giving financial aid to this developer. The homeovmers asked her to appear before Council. They are opposed to the size of the building being put on a 2 I/2 acre lot, the additional number of people allowed to live there, the potential traffic situation with all of the residents perhaps driving, yet there are only 85 parking spaces pimpned. Where are the employees lbr the development going to park? Another issue is the amount of traffic generated by the number of trips per day lbr this particular lot. She felt it did not take into consideration that everything is designated for the same small comer. The ro_~jor thing mentioned in the letters/phone calls/lhxes is the amount of money the taxpayers are being given to a private developer. Pleasanton City Council 17 06/06/00 Minutes