11 ATTACHMENT 01 - Laserfiche WebLink

of the numbers come up around the rest of the City, the 25-percent/75-percent mix may have to change, and there was pretty much consensus among the Commissioners that going up to about 35 percent was an acceptable number. Commissioner Olson agreed. Commissioner Pearce stated that she did some math on the 35 percent because she was thinking about how it helps considerably in terms of the number of multi-family units. She noted that for Alternative 1, that would be 350 units; Alternative 2 would be 499 units; Alternative 3 would be 599 units; and Alternative 4 would be 449 units. She pointed out that it seems like that is still within the realm of the policy direction that the Commission had recommended but gets more units. Chair Blank added that it is also reasonably consistent with what the rest of Pleasanton looks like. Commissioner Pearce agreed totally. Commissioner O'Connor inquired if that was from a low number to a high number. Commissioner Pearce replied that it is from Alternative 1 to Alternative 4. She added that she is only talking about the number of multi-family units and not about single-family units. Commissioner Olson stated that he totally agrees that the Commission's consensus at the last meeting was that it was comfortable with 35 percent. He then pointed out that the two or three projects that Mr. Dolan indicated scored quite high at the last round but were not included ought to be considered at this point as the City goes forward. He stated that the numbers should be adjusted to include those projects if it is pretty certain that they are going to go forward, rather than looking at where the City is right now and saying that there is a crisis. Mr. Dolan stated that there is really only one project that is not acknowledged, and that is the Irby site. Commissioner Olson noted that then there are two others. Mr. Dolan stated that there were two sites that were kind of generically identified as Kiewit, a portion of the Kiewit site and not the entire 50-plus acres; and a very small percentage of the Legacy property. He noted that those sites were not picked because the East Pleasanton Specific Plan had not yet been done. He added that it was unclear whether those locations made any sense, and there were some good reasons not to include them. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 12, 2013 Page 5 of 13