Laserfiche WebLink
emphasized; that the City's Housing Opportunities Center had been a successful way of <br /> educating the public about affordable housing opportunities; and public outreach for the zoning <br /> updates regarding shelters and supportive and transitional housing. <br /> The Housing Commission also incorporated comments from Becky Dennis and Citizens for a <br /> Caring Community, referred others to the Growth Management Subcommittee, and directed <br /> staff to make a modification to Policy 26 to clarify that their intent is to keep all income-restricted <br /> units in perpetuity. <br /> Ms. Stern stated a fourth community meeting was held on June 20, 2011 with the purpose of <br /> looking at the 4 sites not reviewed when the 3 meetings were held in March. Those sites were <br /> Site 18, the downtown site; Site 20, Sunol and Sonoma; Site 19, Sunol and Sycamore; and Site <br /> 21, the Wagner property at 4202 Stanley Boulevard. There was also discussion regarding <br /> increased density on Site 1, the BART site. There were 25 attendees at the meeting where <br /> discussion was held. Neighbors specifically at the 4202 Stanley Boulevard voiced concerns <br /> about parking on Stanley Boulevard, traffic congestion and neighborhood fit within that area. A <br /> written comment was submitted regarding Site 18 regarding traffic and parking issues. <br /> On June 22, 2011, the Planning Commission review took place, and the Commission made 3 <br /> amendments to the list of sites. The Commission recommended increasing the Auf de <br /> Maur/Richenback Site 8 from 5.3 to 11.5 acres and at 30 units per acre. The Commission <br /> reduced 3 acres (out of 10 acres) to 23 units per acre for the Gateway Site 7 and left the rest at <br /> 30 units per acre. On the CM Capital Properties Site 13, of the 12.6 acres, the Commission <br /> increased the density on 3 acres to 30 units per acre. The Commission recommended no <br /> changes to the goals, policies and programs. Comments from Citizens for a Caring Community <br /> were referred to staff for further evaluation and recommendation. <br /> Ms. Stern said since the last meeting in May with the City Council, staff has continued to hear <br /> from residents, particularly on the Pleasanton Gateway Site 7, regarding potential changes to <br /> their neighborhood, concerns about potential adverse impacts to schools, traffic on the <br /> weekends which is different than the office development proposed, and impacts on property <br /> values. The Council heard from neighbors of the east Pleasanton sites about the potential for a <br /> large proportion of the units to be located in this area and potential impacts on traffic, parks and <br /> schools. <br /> Ms. Stern presented a map relating to higher density residential development, senior housing <br /> complex locations, location of sites rezoned in the Hacienda Business Park, and the 17 potential <br /> housing site locations, depicting where higher density housing is in the City and in the east <br /> Pleasanton area. Councilmember Cook-Kallio requested that the map be placed on the City's <br /> website, as it was not part of the staff report. <br /> Ms. Stern said the owner of Site 8, E.S. Ring Corporation, held an Open House on July 14th and <br /> staff reviewed the question of increasing the size of the site from 5.3 to 11.5 acres. There were <br /> 38 attendees. There were favorable comments about the design concept as well as other <br /> comments as to how this site related to the context of the whole east Pleasanton area. There <br /> was concern about the number of units in east Pleasanton, ingress and egress from Nevada <br /> Court, parking availabilities, security issues from foot traffic, and the suggestion that senior <br /> housing here would result in less traffic. <br /> Comments and suggestions from the Citizens for a Caring Community, which were included as <br /> part of the City Council packet, included suggested changes regarding the prioritization of <br /> certain potential projects and the inclusion of commercial development in growth management. <br /> Staff thinks these comments should be forwarded to the growth management subcommittee for <br /> their review and consideration. Some changes suggested review of the Inclusionary Zoning <br /> City Council Minutes Page 5 of 14 July 19, 2011 <br />