SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Annette Brecheisen From: Pleasanton City Clerk„,,Ls� Subject: Item 12 -Irby Ranch ==a2-,1 7 From: Ellen Holmgren Sent:Tuesday, February 07, 2017 2:22 PM �' 2 To: Brock Roby; Mayor and City Council<citycouncil @ cityofpleasantonca.gov> Cc: Pleasanton City Clerk<pleasantoncityclerk @cityofpleasantonca.gov>; Adam Weinstein <AWeinstein @cityofpleasantonca.gov>;Jennifer Hagen <jhagen @cityofpleasantonca.gov>; Kendall Granucci <KGranucci @cityofpleasantonca.gov> Subject: RE: Item 12- Irby Ranch Dear Brock Roby, Thank you for your email regarding Agenda Item 12, Irby Ranch and Sunflower Hill, on the City Council Agenda for February 7, 2017. This email acknowledges receipt of your email to the Mayor and City Council and the City Manager. Thank you again for your interest in the City of Pleasanton. Sincerely yours, Ellen Holmgren,Administrative Assistant City of Pleasanton From: Brock Roby Sent:Tuesday, February 07, 2017 2:18 PM To: Mayor and City Council<citycouncil @cityofpleasantonca.gov> Subject: Item 12- Irby Ranch Mayor Thorne and City Council: I am not sure if I will be at the meeting to speak tonight, so I wanted to send an email. As a 16 year resident of Pleasanton and home-owner not far from this proposed development, I want to state that I am in favor of this project. A few points to consider: 1) Housing shortage. The Bay Area and Pleasanton are experiencing an extreme shortage of housing that can be afforded by our workers and our families. I grew up on a farm outside a town of 750 people—I wish I still lived in a setting like that. It would be wrong and embarrassing for me to complain that Pleasanton leaders are not working to create my favorite vision for how I want to live. 2) Starter homes: We have plenty of new rental units, but not many homes-for-purchase. And especially not for those who are wanting to enter the housing market by purchasing their first home. This project would be perfect for that. 3) Highest and Best Use: This project represents the highest and best use of this land. It is not useful as agricultural land any longer. The City cannot afford to buy it as a park.The location next to other residential uses,and within walking distance to downtown, is perfect for residential. Arguably,this might be an ideal location for higher density residential do to the walkability of the location, but we are not in need of high-density residential right now.And, because we are approving this now without being forced by our RHNA numbers,we can choose a nice, high-quality single-family plan as is proposed.