PC 081016 - Laserfiche WebLink

service commercial. At the last workshop he was not as supportive as he is this evening. He thinks this type of development is going to use less water because it has no yards. He thinks the water issues are much less concerning that he had originally thought. Regarding schools overcrowding, he was looking at General Plan numbers and not what PUSD was using so he was softened a bit on that. From the workshop he was disappointed that the applicant only came down from 95 units to 93 units. He thinks they also discussed redesign of some of the lots so there were fewer three -story homes and this did not seem to happen, and they only added six more parking spaces. Therefore, he wished there was more progress made in those areas. He was not looking for more open space, but like Commissioner Allen, if they had fewer units they could enlarge the acreage for Sunflower Hill. It seems so small even when adding in what is being built in Livermore. While it is a start to address special needs housing, he likened it to a "drop in the bucket" and wished they could get more units for Sunflower Hill. Therefore, Commissioner O'Connor said because he thinks waiting until 2022 is not the right answer and the alternatives are that the City will end up with more traffic on the road than they would if they did not build this project and he is in support of the project because of Sunflower Hill. He would support the project but would like others besides Commissioner Allen to consider having it return with a redraft if the meeting is continued to see if even a couple of units could be added to make Sunflower Hill larger. However, if the Commission was not prepared to continue it, he would be prepared to support it. Chair Ritter asked if a motion could be made that suggests it go to the City Council with the recommendation from the Planning Commission to add these options so they do not have to continue it and to keep it moving. Mr. Beaudin said this is an option for the Commission and it is what staff had in mind when they developed the conditions of approval. He thinks the Commission could make clear that its expectation is that the City Council see that redesign and be very clear about getting consensus around whether there be fewer units, fewer three -story buildings or homes in the development, and he wants to know if there is support from the Commission before moving to the City Council. His concern is that by going in and sitting down with the developers if there is any lack of clarity, direction should be sorted out before getting to the Council. Commissioner O'Connor noted that in the workshop they talked about fewer units, fewer two- and three -story units, and personally he would rather leave the three -story units in if they can remove some of the units. If doing both he thinks they will lose too many units for the developer. At 93 units, with the land of about 11 '/z acres, they are at a higher density than normally approved, but he does not want to cut the project in half but make it reasonable for the developer as well. He was hoping to have three or four units to carve out in some strategic areas, they could expand the land available for somebody else. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 10, 2016 Page 27 of 33