PC 042314 - Laserfiche WebLink

85 -90 houses for the site. She continued that they also negotiated setbacks because these were going to be very large houses that would be looming over existing single -story moderate houses of about 1,800 square feet. She added that another thing that was really important to the neighborhoods on both Foothill Farms and Foothill Knolls related to the three stub streets that border this area: Eastwood Way, Fernwood Way and Prairie Drive. She noted that the stub streets were originally constructed in a Housing Element plan years ago to actually continue all the way to connect to Bernal Avenue; however, Laguna Oaks was developed as an infill, and that plan on the stub streets did not materialize. She indicated that what they had negotiated with the developers in the previous two attempts was to create emergency vehicle access (EVA) at two of the stub streets and then actually create the main access to Foothill Road, to address the traffic impact on their neighborhood, where the houses have been there since 1968 or 1969, and children play in the stub streets. She requested that, should the developer return with plans to redevelop, the Commission and staff consider all the efforts the neighborhood has done to work with the developers in good faith and continue out those negotiations. Jay Atkinson, a member of Ownership Energy, Las Positas Properties, LLC, which is the present owner of the CM Capital site, stated that they bought the property in 2012 from CM Capital and focused on the commercial aspects of the property, which is their business. He indicated that they recognize and compensated CM Capital for the residential component and mixed -use zoning, and speak out of self- interest, as all speakers have done this evening, while at the same time thinking it is ultimately good policy. He noted that infill housing is needed in the greater Bay area, and there is value to that. He, therefore, asked that the Commission retain the mixed -use zoning of the property. He added that it is good policy and certainly does not necessarily compel development opportunity at the property. He further added that they also think anything developed there will go through a very extensive and involved design process, as the Summerhill housing team went through on the other parcel. Kay Ayala stated that this is the fourth General Plan Housing Element meeting she has attended, and this is the most people that have been present at all those meetings she has attended. She noted that the non - profits and for - profits are here again tonight and that only a handful of speakers attended the Housing Commission meeting because the public does not know this is happening. Ms. Ayala stated that she was floored when she received all these letters from the developers wanting to rezone and be part of the Housing Element. She indicated that she could have called multiple people and there would have been a roomful of people on the Merritt property alone had they known this meeting was happening. She then read a few lines from the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the City's Constitution and the plan the City is supposed to be following: "By 2025, if all residential land on the General Plan map is built out, Pleasanton will contain a maximum of 29,000 housing units, approximately 600 second units and approximately 1,100 residents in congregate living facilities. These units will support a residential population of about 78,200." She noted that Pleasanton citizens voted twice on a 29,000 housing cap, and she realizes PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 23, 2014 Page 18 of 27