PC 091510 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Blank moved to find that there are no new or changed circumstances or information which would require additional CEQA review of the project and that the proposed PUD rezoning and development plan are consistent with the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan; to make the PUD findings for the proposed development plan as listed in the staff report; and to recommend approval of Case PUD-82, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit A of the staff report, with the modifications that: (1) the applicant work with staff to determine the tree species that would ensure appropriate tree sizes and to maximize shading; (2) the fencing material be con-heart redwood; (3) plain language be utilized in the disclosures and restrictive covenants; and (4) train whistle noise and vibration be included in the train disclosure. Commissioner O’Connor suggesting including for the record that the project fits with the zoning and Specific Plan for the Downtown Specific Plan as amended a couple of years ago, and that the Pleasanton Downtown will see higher density housing going forward. Commissioner Blank noted that the applicant was very articulate when he stated that these types of infill projects are tough. He indicated that he likes the idea that, while technically not affordable housing, these units may be affordable. Commissioner O’Connor agreed, stating they may be considered affordable by design because of the number of units that can be developed per acre. Chair Olson added that Downtowns do better with higher densities. Commissioner Blank inquired if there were any concerns by staff regarding the construction duration of the project, such as constructing the houses in phases, and any impacts it may have on the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Otto replied that staff has not discussed phasing with the applicant but that this is something that occurs in projects. He indicated that staff would want to see a plan detailing which units the applicant would want to built first. Commissioner Blank noted that phasing is not specifically called for in the project conditions and inquired if staff felt that the standard construction conditions would allow for such flexibility or if it would need to be specifically spelled out. Mr. Otto replied that the Commission could add language that the applicant could propose phasing. Chair Olson noted that the applicant had indicated that the project would likely be constructed in phases. Mr. Dolan advised that the applicant had asked the City for flexibility to address the market. He indicated that it might be setting up an artificial construct if it is not known at this point how the construction would roll out. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 15, 2010 Page 16 of 23