12 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

in them are deficient but that there are densities much higher than 30 units per acre across the freeway in Dublin that are condominium projects that are homeownership. He added that a year ago, developers were pushing two projects, one of which was rental and the other ownership. Commissioner Narum voiced angst on this, as well. She stated that she thinks the reason the affordable housing people are not present is because this was put into the General Plan, and they may have felt the job was done at that point. She indicated that part of what bothers her is the unknown in terms of what the PUD modification for the business park would end up looking like. She noted that she might feel better if she knew more about it. She stated that she definitely supports rezoning Site 1 across the street from the BART station, as every other community is doing transit oriented development by BART stations. She added that she thinks she can support rezoning for Site 2 as well, but is having trouble with Site 3 as the southern end of that parcel falls outside the -mile radius. Commissioner Pentin stated that he has issues with the Negative Declaration. He indicated that he was a renter, has a child in school who, he hopes, will be able to return to Pleasanton after college and rent. He indicated that he understands the ownership and pride in neighborhoods and acknowledged that the Commission does not know what type of developments may be proposed; however, to state that the only people who will live in the developments are undesirables is not necessarily true. He stated that he was more concerned about how, should developers come in for the three properties, the School District will take care of the issue, noting that the nearest school is farther than 1/2 mile away from the transit oriented development area. Commissioner Pentin further stated that even though there are 41 or 42 parks in Pleasanton, and knowing what the City committed to with the Bernal Community Park, the Sports Park, and Staples Park, he was concerned with how the City would achieve more park space. He also noted that each parcel was individually owned and that there was no space in Hacienda to create park space. He added that he hoped those questions would be answered during the PUD process. Commissioner Blank moved to find that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and recommend approval of the Negative Declaration only for Site 1; to find that the proposed PUD rezoning from PUD -I /C -O to PUD -MU is consistent with the General Plan and purposes of the PUD Ordinance only for Site 1; and to adopt a resolution recommending approval of Case PRZ -48 only for site 1; and to amend the language in Exhibit B, Item 2 that the applicant shall prepare new CC &Rs in plain language, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. Commissioner Narum seconded the motion. Chair Pearce asked staff if rezoning only Site 1 would fully implement Program 19.1 of the Housing Element. DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 9/23/2009 Page 16 of 18