12 - Laserfiche WebLink

HOUSING COMMISSION ACTION At its February 20, 2014, meeting, the Housing Commission approved the agreement described on pages 6-7 of this report. The Housing Commission Agenda Report and draft minutes of the Housing Commission meeting are included in Attachment 7. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 26, 2014, to review the proposed project. Detailed information on this meeting is provided in Attachment 6, draft excerpts of the Planning Commission minutes. At the hearing Patrick Kernan, representing Pleasanton Unified School District, informed the Commission that the school board and the applicant have reached an agreement and expressed his support of the proposed development. James Paxson, Hacienda General Manager, spoke in favor of the project. Anthony Gio, a resident in Parkside neighborhood, expressed his concerns relating to potential congestions at Thomas Hart Middle School, accuracy of the photosimulations proposed by the applicant, the height of the proposed wall along the southern property line, and requested that the property at 5794 West Las Positas Boulevard be rezoned back to commercial uses. Ms. Karen Ellgas, resident at 3274 Curtis Circle, commended staff and the applicant for working with the residents. Ms. Ellgas indicated that she has not seen the school agreement, nor has she reviewed the Affordable Housing Agreement. She stated that she has concerns regarding the agreement with the school district as well as the affordable housing agreement. Robert Natsch, a Parkside resident, spoke against having an access gate from the proposed development to the north side of the arroyo. One commissioner commented that some of the existing residences on the south side of the arroyo have access gates from their backyards to the south side of the arroyo; it would be reasonable to require an access gate for this project. The gate in question was initially proposed but later removed from the proposal by the applicant in response to concerns and objections expressed by Parkside residents. The gate matter was discussed at the Planning Commission second work session on January 22, 2014, and the three attending commissioners supported the removal of the gate. After receiving public testimony, the Commission approved the application on a 5-0 vote subject to staffs recommended conditions. The Commission then unanimously voted to recommend the project to the City Council. DISCUSSION As the project has been conditioned, staff is satisfied with the site design, density, housing type and affordability, building design, and open space/amenities. The design of the project has evolved significantly to address concerns of the Planning Commission and the Parkside neighborhood residents. Examples of some of the changes include a redesign of the facade facing the arroyo including the relocation of third floor units facing the arroyo to the interior of the site, the relocation of the pool, additional landscape screening facing the arroyo, the addition of a six foot tall soundwall along the back property line of the property, and several design and operational improvements. Page 8 of 11