12 - Laserfiche WebLink

• Site 13: Pimlico Drive (South) — 40 Units: This site is developed with a small grocery store which would be displaced if the site were developed. It also abuts single-family residential uses directly to the south, making it less suitable for higher -density development. Since it would not yield a considerable number of units, and with these other factors, the Planning Commission felt this site is less suitable than the others and did not recommend its inclusion. • Sites 17 Mission Plaza and 18: Vallev Plaza — (67 units and 220 units, respectively) for a total of 287 units): Both of these sites are developed with small businesses, many of which have been long-time tenants that provide important services to the surrounding neighborhood (and greater Pleasanton community). These two shopping centers are also more centrally located within the city where local services and amenities within the center are valued and are able to serve a large number of residents. Based on these factors, as well as the number of community comments in opposition to including these sites, the Planning Commission did not recommend their inclusion in the sites inventory. • Site 26: St. Auqustine -- 19 Units: This site is entirely surrounded by low-density, low- rise residential development, and would thus be best suitable for relatively low-density housing. Although the Archdiocese has indicated its interest, given that it is a small site, with a small yield of units, the Planning Commission did not recommend its inclusion. • Site 28: SteelWave — 1.331 Units: The decision whether to include this site garnered the most discussion and debate by the Planning Commission. Ultimately, the Planning Commission agreed with staff's recommendation to exclude this site from the inventory, based on several reasons, including: o The majority of this large site lies outside of the city limits. As outlined in the City's General Plan, the area is anticipated to undergo a comprehensive study to determine the appropriate mix of land uses, number of housing units (if any), as well as supporting infrastructure and circulation. o Complexity to planning this site is compounded by the potential development of a large new distribution facility on a 58 -acre parcel adjacent to the sites identified by the property owner for housing; and the unknown development status of the 26.6 -acre property (also owned by SteelWave) just to the east of the Village at Ironwood and outside the city limits. o Although the SteelWave properties may ultimately prove to be an appropriate location for housing, the majority of the Commission believed it premature to commit to a particular development scheme through the Housing Element process, and rather let such a proposal be more comprehensively considered through the East Pleasanton Specific Plan (EPSP) process. o Concern that selecting this site could over -concentrate the number of potential housing units (and related impacts) in this area of the city since two other sites (Site 20: Boulder Court and Site 21: Kiewit) were also suggested to be included in the sites analysis. Excluding the above five sites would reduce overall capacity by 1,677 units, leaving a remaining total capacity of 4,952 units among the other sites — this would bring the total capacity of new sites needed approximately in line with, though slightly over, the recommended 50 percent buffer (237 units over the buffer). The Planning Commission's final recommendation of all sites to be carried forward as well as all sites to be removed from the list is included in Table 5. 14 of 18