PC 083116 - Laserfiche WebLink

get there if it helps your logic is that when I look at the Valley Trails Drive road itself being a horseshoe and the concept of any other use of this site being something that would basically chokehold this street to gridlock, I can't personally justify anything else than the housing element in my opinion. I definitely think the school issue is a challenge. I definitely think if you put anything of a public nature in this area, you're going to chokehold Valley Trails and I see it when you have to deal with it at every light cycle with Ken Mercer's sports park across the street. So from my view, I think that's how I was able to say a General Plan Amendment in my opinion is supportable. Commissioner Allen: May I make one comment. I may be the only person involved during the Housing Element Task Force. If Greg was here, sat with me about four or five years ago through almost every single Housing Element meeting and that's when I met Connie Cox and sat through to hear the disposition on every project. That is what causes —and in those meetings and we have three Councilmembers who were actually serving on the Planning Commission then and as they made a final decision about how many total projects to rezone, there was quite a discussion of should we rezone additional land and additional project sites, not in Valley Trails projects —like that was taken off of the list. Should we rezone more than we need to just in case. And as I sat there listening to the three Planning Commissioners who were up there, it was absolutely not over my dead body would we do that and that was because of the strong public input that came in over a year and one half about why would we do that. So I lived through that. I saw the public input that came and I'm also looking at the survey that was done just last year. It's the most recent survey of our residents across Pleasanton when we asked them what their number one concern was. This was an open -ended question. What is your top concern if anything, and the number one concern was there was too much growth and development. That was the number one, unprompted concern. It was twice as much as the second concern which was water. On that same survey they asked a separate question which was what are your top issues and of the issues, it was 43% of people in total across the City said too much growth and development was a top issue and 2 years previously that number was just 23 %. So what it said as a whole community, people are increasingly concerned about that issue and in contrast, only 14% said too slow a growth was an issue. It was because of traffic and water, but I'm just highly, highly sensitive of this community here I understand why you're here but I'm really needing to look more broadly at sitting through those meetings that I sat through for a year and one half and this material to say I'm not sure this is the right time. But, I want to acknowledge, Jack to your point, that medium density housing is the right use for this land and I also agree that probably institutional and certainly high density housing absolutely doesn't make sense. So my concern, and again, I'm not voting here. I just need more information, but my concern right now is just a timing question. It's not about the project, but I want to participate though in the project in how to make it the best it could be. Chair Ritter: Great feedback. Let's move onto Number 2: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 31, 2016 Page 20 of 58