PC 030404 - Laserfiche WebLink

Kurt Kummer, 4456 Clovewood Lane, pointed out that there were two triangular pieces of property in the area planned for the West Las Positas Boulevard interchange. He stated that one of these properties, approximately 2.5 acres in size, is surrounded by high-density housing and would be appropriate for more high-density housing. Patrick Cashman, Director of Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, owner of Staples Ranch, 224 West Winton Avenue, Suite 110, Hayward, stated that the western portion of Staples Ranch, which is outside the Airport Protection Zone and measures approximately 35 acres, provides a great opportunity for housing development. He indicated that the County had been approached by a senior residential community developer with a conceptual proposal to a develop 600-unit combination of small home villa, apartment housing, congregate care, assisted living, skilled care, and medical facilities. He noted that there is a lack of such facility in the area where couples can live and stay together during their final years. He concluded that while the City's decision on whether or not to extend Stoneridge Drive to El Charro Road is not critical to the Authority's plans, they would like the City to resolve the issue in one way or another. Phyllis Lee, 750 Sycamore Creek Way, stated that she would not like to see any additional development in South Pleasanton. She stated that if high-density residential is the direction the City wishes to take, the Hacienda Business Park and Staples Ranch sites would be suitable for this purpose. Philip Blank, 1339 Hearst Drive, commented that any development on Staples Ranch should "- include extra sound proofing because it would be right under the flight path of the Livermore Municipal Airport, whose runway is being planned for extension by the City of Livermore to accommodate larger and additional aircrafts. Michael Regan, 1363 Hearst Drive, stated that traffic patterns should be the top priority when considering where additional housing should be sited. He indicated that the reason people want to live in Pleasanton is because it has a well thought-out plan and that the City has to ensure that it does not become the victim of its own success by continuing to build and destroy make what makes the City unique. Cindy McGovern, 9206 Longview Drive, noted that the tables presented indicate that the actual number of units for high-density housing at the General Plan mid-point was 15 per acre rather than 20 as stated in the Housing Element. She inquired what the actual number should be. Mr. Swift replied that the high-density residential classification in the current General Plan is 15 units per acre and that all the tables were developed for the Housing Element in that Plan. He noted, however, that there is no upper end for high-density residential, which would account for projects in Hacienda Business Park and other sites with 20 to 25 units per acre. He added that one of the outgrowths of the Housing Element discussion was that 15 units per acre was too low for where the City wanted to see high-density move in the future, thereby creating a new policy which modified the high-density number to 20 units per acre, with a target of 25 or more for significant affordable housing. He stated that the policy is directed towards identifying 30 to PLANNING COMMISSION GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINUTES, 3/4/2004 Page 7 of 13