11 ATTACHMENT 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner O'Connor asked Mr. Adams how many units were in his development. Mr. Adams replied that there were 36 units on approximately 2.3 acres; they had a 15-foot setback. He noted that some of his neighbors had three cars, and they were working on a placard system for extended parking to accommodate those neighbors. He noted that anybody can park on Stanley Boulevard and that the four parking places on Stanley Boulevard would be available to anyone and not just the proposed development. He noted that they could not guarantee those parking places and added that there were often ten cars parked in front of his complex. Darell Walterson pointed out the location of his home on the overhead screen and noted that it was built in 1914 and was built on the property line. He stated that he had a detached garage in the back left-hand side of the lot and that the backyard of a potential neighbor would have a demising wall adjacent to their lot. He noted that he had a backyard shop and that he uses power tools, as well as creating metal sculpture, which was sometimes noisy. He noted that he would be installing solar panels on his garage and that there would be a sunlight easement, both of which may be a concern. He noted that the house on 4189 Stanley Boulevard was an older house and inquired whether the Pleasanton Heritage Association should look at it. He noted that there were some very large trees at that location as well. He stated that he believed a winery would be a good addition to Downtown Pleasanton and provide a connection at this site. He noted that Old Stanley Boulevard may be realigned, that sidewalks may be placed on the north side, and that they would lose an eight-foot gravel swale with natural percolation. He noted that they did not have any natural drainage and that the percolation kept the water from going into the arroyo. He stated that he believed impervious surfaces with accelerated runoff would put more pollutants into the arroyo. With respect to the realignment of Stanley Boulevard, he stated that he understood they wanted to put the parking on the north side and leave the south side of Stanley Boulevard in a natural state with the older homes. In response to an inquiry by Chair Blank regarding whether he had a recorded view easement, Mr. Walterson replied that he did not yet have a recorded view easement. He noted that he had been looking into it for the last two months and was worried about it. David Walker agreed with the previous speakers and was concerned about density-related issues, particularly parking, residents with more than two cars, and those who fill their garages with things other than cars. He noted that he believed it would be very difficult to control that and encouraged the Commission to not compromise the parking requirements for this area. Wilona Perry noted that she had lived in the neighborhood since 1964 and had seen many changes in the neighborhood. She believed the density of the proposed project would be too high for the neighborhood and expressed concern about the height limit. She was concerned about the parking for 14 homes, which would bring in at least 28 more cars to the neighborhood. She noted that the homes would be 2,000 square feet, with teenage drivers, which would potentially allow for 35 to 40 cars. She believed there should be one guest parking space per person, per house. She believed that there should be a maximum of ten homes if the development were to proceed and that 14 homes was too many. She was concerned about the ability of the Fire Department to access the development and about the safety of people coming off of Main Street or Santa Rita Road, making left-hand turn to go down Stanley Boulevard, and then making another quick left turn to get into the property, especially during the afternoon EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 8 of 17