PC 012506 - Laserfiche WebLink

~., purchase the units during a certain period of time. He clarified that the subset could include professionals such as nurses or teachers. Commissioner Maas noted that while her son was raised in Pleasanton, he lived in San Leandro because of affordability issues and hoped that kind of situation would not be an obstacle. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regazding anti-flip policies, Mr. Roush noted that generally that kind of restriction is not put on a property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. John McMorrow, applicant, noted that the purchase agreements included ananti-flip provision and that there would not be numerous "For Sale" signs since the developer would be the one trying to sell units. He added that the affordable units were designated for Pleasanton residents first, and people who work in Pleasanton second. He did not want the entire project conditioned on that. He noted that one renter objected to the tot lot, and, as a result, it was removed. He noted that they saved every tree that could be saved. He noted that there were hundreds of cable types for the various solar systems and that it would be impossible to determine the type that would be needed. He added that they would supply the pipe and the pull cable. Windows were added to the garages so that it could be determined if a resident was not using their gazage for pazking a caz. If the homeowners association did not enforce the gazage requirements, the CC&Rs give ~" the City the ability to enforce them. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin regazding whether he would agree to putting the tot lot back in, Mr. McMorrow stated that he would like to but expressed concern about the neighbor who objected. He added that there was a sitting area near the arroyo and other benches towazds the middle of the site. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Maas noted that she had no issues with this project but was concerned that one renter could disallow the tot lot. She noted that the patios were very small and believed the tot lot was needed in the project. Chairperson Arkin agreed with Commissioner Maas' comments and believed this was a very good infill site with smaller-scale mazket-rate housing. He believed the applicant has done a phenomenal job in trying to work with the community, the Commission, and the City. He strongly supported the tot lot and added that they generally were not very noisy. He noted that an 8-foot by 12-foot lot was not very big and was meant for very small children. He added that older children would be more likely to play at the pazk rather than at the tot lot. /~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 2006 Page 12 of 19