PC 081413 - Laserfiche WebLink

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS a. PUD- 96/P13 -1928, Pleasanton Gateway, L.L.C. (Scott Trobbe) Applications for: (1) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Development Plan to construct 210 apartment units, 97 single - family detached units, and related on- and off -site improvements on an approximately 26.72 -acre site located at 1600 Valley Avenue (south side of the Pleasanton Gateway Shopping Center); and (2) Development Agreement for the project. Zoning for the property is PUD -HDR and MDR (Planned Unit Development -High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential) District. Marion Pavan presented the staff report and described the scope, layout, and key elements of the project. He then noted that also present to answer questions were Al Baez, Engineering Technician III, on engineering matters; Mike Tassano, City Traffic Engineer, on traffic issues, and Mary Bean, project consultant, on the Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Acting Chair Olson disclosed that he met a couple of times with the developer, Scott Trobbe, and his team and attended a neighborhood outreach meeting conducted by Mr. Trobbe. Scott Trobbe, Applicant, Pleasanton Gateway, LLC., thanked Mr. Pavan for a very thorough and complete staff report. He noted that Mr. Pavan has been a big asset in this project, as well as staff in general and Brian Dolan and Janice Stern in particular. Mr. Trobbe stated that this project started almost two years ago with the Housing Element Task Force. He indicated that from an efficiency perspective, he would like to take a different approach in his team's presentation, and instead of showing their slide presentation, he would touch on the big picture items and then answer any questions the Commission may have. He added that also present tonight to answer questions is his development team, an extraordinarily talented group of individuals from the architect to the landscape staff. Mr. Trobbe stated that there were three big picture items that he just wanted to touch on, the first being traffic. He noted that this particular area has gone through four different traffic reports since the year 2009 and has been evaluated virtually once a year for the last four years, the most recent of which is the July Traffic Report before the Commission. He indicated that the reason he wanted to bring this up is because when the chemistry of the site was changed from an office project to a residential project, the trip count dropped significantly by over 300 trips. He pointed out that when the second -to -last Traffic Report was done for the Housing Element and General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the site was approved for 388 units, but only PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 14, 2013 Page 3 of 17