PC 011316 - Laserfiche WebLink

neighborhood. Like the others have said, people coming down that road are going way too fast and it would be great to have the little flashing light to make people realize they're going a little too fast along there. But I've been looking at that empty lot for 50 years and with the outbuildings and the shrubs, it would be real nice to have something that looks really good there. So, I'm just kind of in agreement and I hope you'll consider that and that you'll go along with the project because it's going to be great. Ritter: Okay, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the applicant. Do you have any more comments or maybe we'll just ask you questions? THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Houston: Surely you can ask questions, but I did want to talk about some of the outreach that we have done and that was another thing that staff told us from day one; that you've got to go out in the community and talk to people. So to that end, a lot of our local neighbors have signed on support; Ms. Young and the Lesters, Mr. Raman who is next door, the Pleasant View Church of Christ. The Preserve Board of Directors support the project. The Kolb Ranch Board of Directors support the project. We're going to be meeting with the Canyon Meadows HOA Board later this month. They couldn't schedule a meeting any earlier. Last night, we were at the Pleasanton Unified School District. They have approved a negotiated mitigation agreement. The project will support Pleasanton schools to the tune of $159,000 and the District will accommodate our students from this development. So we've made a real effort to get out into the community and talk to people. The general consensus is that this is an under - utilized, and I prefer to call it an unpolished gem. A lot of other people are not quite so charitable. There is a garbage dump there. It's overgrown. It hasn't been used as an equestrian center for 20 -30 years and so it is an eyesore in the middle of an area. We think that we can make it something a lot better and at least our local community seems to think that we should give it a change. So, I can answer any questions that you have and I appreciate your feedback. Nagler: Thank you for all this and it is a very interesting project. I appreciate all of the work you've put into it. Clearly staff is less supportive of it than what you would like them to be and I think it might be helpful before making direct comments for us to get a little more detail about some of the specific points that you raise in the staff report and why you have responded the way you have and in many instances, not making changes that apparently that staff is recommending, not only in the number of homes but some other items as well. So, just to start, as is pointed out in the staff report, the density or the number of lots to be allowed per acre on this parcel has been the subject of several General Plan updates and reviews and not withstanding all of that and not withstanding that the property could be put to a better use, the density is what it is after those reviews. Jennifer do you mind explaining a little bit of the rationale behind that and why staff isn't supportive of this PUD to alter that density? Hagen: Well, at this time this particular property has been looked at various times through the Housing Element updates as well as the comprehensive General Plan update that we did. The majority of the area, except for the two residential PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 13, 2016 Page 10 of 26