PC 052213 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Rasmussen stated that Alternative 1 scatters the multi - family residential near Valley Avenue and over by the future El Charro Road, with the private green belt linking the two. He added that it also provides an extension of Boulder Street, which is in all the Alternatives, except that in Alternative 1, Boulder Street goes up and comes back down and onto El Charro Road, in addition to Busch Road, to allow for development to be able to come down and exit onto Valley Avenue without having to go onto Busch Road and past the neighbors, thereby dispersing traffic and not impacting the neighbors as much. Mr. Rasmussen noted that all the Alternatives also show a potential school site; although the Pleasanton Unified School District (PUSD) is not sure if there will be a need for a school, it has asked to include a potential area for a school within the Alternatives. He further noted that the Task Force and other City Commissions and Committees very recently have asked that the location of a neighborhood park be considered in conjunction with a school. He then indicated that Alternative 1 has a total of 1,000 housing units, the least of the four Alternatives. Mr. Rasmussen stated that difference between Alternative 2 and Alternative 1 is that Alternative 2 is a more community- centered Alternative, with the multi- family located farther down and surrounded by single - family, and parks and non - residential areas located farther up. He noted that this Alternative is also the only one that provides for the extension of Boulder Street all the way through to connect to El Charro Road; the other Alternatives only bring it part of the way with the concern that industrial development may tend to use that road in order to go on Valley Avenue, and industrial should not be mixed with residential unless necessary. He continued that this Alternative has the spine with access to the park and has what most of the others do, such as the drainage ways with trails extending on. He indicated that the social area for this Alternative is by the Community Park, with retail and village green all within close proximity. He added that this Alternative also has the most office space and not much industrial; it also has 1,426 units which is 50 percent of the 2,858 units, earlier discussed by Ms. Stern, that would be necessary to meet the two cycles of RHNA numbers within the City. Mr. Rasmussen stated that Alternative 3 has a total of 1710 units, which is the most of the four Alternatives, and is distinguished by the relocation of the high- density residential to the east of the residential planning area. He noted that it has the same sort of social arrangement with a Community Park and neighborhood shopping, and also potentially provides for the school site between the two multi - family residential sites. He added that if there is no school, the area would be multi - family with a neighborhood park next to it. He indicated that it also has the spine, and in this case, Boulder Street curves back up and does not extend on through the OSC and the PGS. Mr. Rasmussen then discussed Alternative 4, which provides for 1,283 units and includes 45 percent of the RHNA housing numbers earlier referred to by Ms. Stern. He indicated that this Alternative is distinguished by the fact that it keeps the OSC and PGS in their current locations. He stated that the OSC does not have any major implications PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 22, 2013 Page 10 of 41