PC 072705 - Laserfiche WebLink

William Harrison, 587 St. Tohn Street, stated that ha walked past the area every week and applauded the Commission and the developer for their noble goal of providing affordable housing in Pleasanton; however, the cost of the units would probably be more expensive per square foot than most homes. He presented four major issues of concern= (1J Preserve as many trees as possible; ~2~ Parking is a big issue in the Downtown, and everything is full; six driveways would take away six parking spaces along the street; ~3~ The building architecture needs to address the streetscape and curb appeal, which appear very crowded and not proportioned next to the Oxsen residence and across troth the Chamber of G'ommerce, resulting in the need to reduce the number of units; and ~4~ Safety. Steve Reynolds, 2828 Daylily Court, stated that he was a 37-year Pleasanton resident, a civil engineer who moved back to Pleasanton when housing was still affordable. 1-le noted that this was no longer the case as Pleasanton has become exclusive and pricey. He commented that the houses being proposed would provide an opportunity for four young people to coma back to Pleasanton and take pride in owning a detached home. He indicated that the applicant has had to go through many hoops to make the project appear as nice as possible, and the purpose of the similar architectural design of the units is to keep the cost down and affordable. He emphasized that eliminating four street parking spaces should not be a big issue because people are more important than parking spaces. He requested the Commission to support the prof ect_ Chris Harm, 1 124 Donahue Drive, stated that he concurred with Mr. Reynold's comments. He indicated that he grew up in Pleasanton, went to Pleasanton Middle School and Foothill High School, is an active citizen and an Alameda CJounty firef ghter, and loved Pleasanton and would like to be part of it. He stated that he has been living with his parents for the past three-and-a-half years so he could save for a down payment to purchase one of the units. He noted. that it is important to have a balanced. community that included the involvement of young citizens. He concluded that this project was an opportunity for the City to embrace its youth and allow them to be helpful and give back to their community. Robert Byrd, 205 Neal Street, commented that the developer is building the project at a cheap cost in order to get what he can for it. He noted that the project is within the jurisdiction of the Pleasanton Downtown Association ~PDA~, contrary to what the applicant states, and that the PDA should state its position regarding parking before the City Council for the good of the general membership. Mr. Byrd then questioned the City's use of the same architect for every peer review and stated that this should be spread around for diversity and independence. He agreed that the project would eliminate four to t3ve street parking spaces and that with possibly six cars not utilizing their tandem parking, a total of ten to eleven parking spaces would be taken from Downtown parking. He stated that concern for the young people should not be at the expense of Downtown businesses that are trying to survive. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Tuly 27, 2005 Page 26 of 31