01 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Pearce referred to the timing of the phasing and asked how long they anticipated development between the Phase 1 and 1 a in the case where residents may need to go off-site for health needs. Mr. Ashenbrenner said it was typical for the health center to open six months later than the main community due to skilled nursing being handled by OSHPOD, the State agency in charge of building hospitals, and said these approvals were very time-consuming. However, their contract stipulates they will send residents to a comparable facility until their health center is finished, but often times, both are built at the same time. Commissioner Pearce referred to the wall separating the facilities and the park and she questioned how they would be involved with the wall and landscaping. Mr. Ashenbrenner said they do not have a wall between them and the park. There will be an 8 foot wall between them and Hendricks Automotive and they will share the cost of its construction and landscaping on both sides of it. Commissioner Fox said on May 9, 2005 the City of Livermore sent Pleasanton a letter stating they strongly oppose the development of additional residential units in this area, even outside of the Airport Protection Area. They said senior health care facilities such as assisted living and congregate care should also not be developed in this area since they would be considered sensitive noise receptors. She asked if CLC representatives have had conversations regarding the compatibility issue, and Mr. Ashenbrenner said he has only had conversations with the airport and its operations, sounds levels, and all agree they were well below levels. Commissioner Fox referred to the California Airport Land Use Planning Policy of January 2002, Chapter 9, page 45 and confirmed with Mr. Ashenbrenner he did not discuss what type of zone they are classified under, and said Zones 3, 4, and 5 are areas which prohibit uses of hospitals and nursing homes. Mr. Bocian said the City of Livermore has agreed to support this and other projects provided that this development include provisions to handle any potential complaints from the development and CLC is therefore required to have an operation to handle complaints. The only issue they have raised is relative to the amount of traffic that could be generated from the Staples Ranch collectively. City Manager Fialho noted that the City did execute acost-sharing agreement with the city of Livermore that basically concluded generally that, so long as Pleasanton did not change dramatically the land use proposals from the MOU, Livermore would support the project as proposed or at least not contest it. Councilmember Sullivan referred to the issue of affordability and said the initial proposals had no affordability content. The staff report on page 7 talks about a couple of different concepts, but he thought it was somewhat unclear. Mr. Bocian said they have been meeting regarding this matter and have developed a framework of two components; one is that CLC will agree to have 15% of the units split between median, low and very low income. The second is to create an annuity which would be used to write down rents for those in the lowest income area. He thinks it is important to know that when looking at these developments, they do not translate clearly to an independent housing project. They do not look at food, transportation or medical service costs. With this opportunity, all of those components are included within their fees so it has been a challenge, but he felt it was consistent with the City's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. Staff's intent is to pass along the framework to the Housing Commission and go through the standard process of drafting an affordable housing agreement for Council approval. City Council/Planning Commission 7 November 8, 2007 Joint Workshop