11 ATTACHMENTS 02-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT Pleasanton address this requirement. He noted that affordable housing developments for people with developmental delays have very low parking demands, and similar projects across the region have successfully earned parking variances allowing for more green open space and amenities adjacent to the housing, creating a very nice community especially if transit is available. He added that these developments also have minimal impact on the K-12 school system; knowing that that is a big concern and they feel that Sunflower Hill feel has a solution. He indicated that lastly, Sunflower Hill is looking to presenting at the November 7, 2013 East Pleasanton Specific Plan Task Force Meeting and look forward to seeing the Commission members and staff there. Blair Wolfinger stated that he supports most of the things that Ms. Liang mentioned and that he is encouraged by all the people that have come out from their development. He expressed concern that the Option for the 1,430 units was completely removed from consideration and the 1,759 units and 1,000 units were proposed with nothing really in the middle other than the 1,283 units that includes the Transfer Station area. He asked if it was possible to put that Option back on the table. With respect to traffic, Mr. Wolfinger stated that he drives by every day and cannot go through their development because the road is blocked off due to traffic concerns. He indicated that he was also encouraged that Busch Road and Boulder Street are being extended because this will help a bit as once the vehicles get to Valley Avenue, they will be stopped by traffic. He noted that his community mentioned controlled growth in their letter, and while he is not that is a theme that needs to be in the Plan, they really encourage that as there is concern that to support all the infrastructure, the housing will have to go above and beyond what the controlled growth called for. He inquired if, as the City moves forward and approves the different developments, the City will only build the number of units required by RHNA at that time period even if the units are already approved. He further inquired if the City is approving numbers that would come back into this time period or if they are being approved for the 2022-2030 period, and if it is possible that the numbers will be pushed in before the requirement are even there. Robert Gonella stated that he is a member of the Board of Directors at Danbury Park and also a member of the East Pleasanton Specific Plan Task Force, taking over for Commissioner Allen when she became a Planning Commissioner. He indicated that although the Task Force has come up with a Preferred Plan, he wishes to state that as a representative of Danbury Park, he does not agree with that Plan because it is too dense. He stated that he thinks Option 1 is the Plan that should be eventually considered and approved, if there is going to be one approved, as it is the least dense and has the most 4-dwelling-units-per-acre housing. He indicated that Option 1 is in keeping with the general character of the City of Pleasanton and that Option 1 was what most of the residential representatives on the Task Force wanted, but they kept being told that Option 1 was not economically feasible, and each Plan had to pay for itself; and Option 1 would not work without City participation, whether through financial districts or fee waivers or something else. DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 9/25/2013 Page 17 of 28