11 ATTACHMENT 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

drive time. She noted that the traffic on Stanley Boulevard has worsened and that it was especially bad during rush hour. She was concerned that there would be accidents and that it did not make any sense to have sc many homes. With respect to the garage, she stated that some of her neighbors with teenage drivers had four cars and a two-car garage. She stated that she did not believe it was feasible to tell someone that they could not have three cars when they only had two parking spaces. She expressed concern that their guests would not have room to park. She stated that she understood that the south side of the street was part of the Historic; Downtown area and that the historic homes should be maintained. She stated that she did not believe the modern, high buildings fit into the area at all. She opposed this project as proposed and believed the density was too high. Paul Martin noted that he lived ii one of the historic houses on Foothill Road and that he and his family moved to Pleasanton for the quality of life. He noted that developments like this were created to meet the housing needs. He was concerned about the ability of his children to be able to afford to live in Pleasanton. He noted that he worked in real estate and believed the median home price in Pleasanton was almost a million dollars. He noted that everyone had to have a quality of life but that housing rust also be provided for the residents. He noted that the 2002 Specific Plan was the reason for this property being high density and did not know why the General Plan was not in compliance; he trusted that staff was working on that issue. He stated that he believed the applicant did a good job and that the houses were attractive. He noted that some adjustment could be made to the elevations so they would be more in keeping with the existing homes on that side of the road, and he stated that he believed the applicant would be able to do that. He stated that he liked the landscaping plan and noted that pervious areas affected everyone. He indicated that he believed that the landscape architect had tried to address that issue and that he understood this would be a tough decision. He stated that he believed the applicants had thought the issues through and had worked with staff and that a project like this would taken advantage of the land that was available to house Pleasanton's residents. In response to an inquiry by Cornmissioner Fox regarding whether he was affiliated with the applicant, Mr. Martin replied that he was not affiliated with the applicant, was not a realtor for the applicant, and did commercial property management. He noted that he had an interest in what was going on in the community. Mr. DiDonato noted that the staff report stated that he was applying for a General Plan Amendment, which he stated he thought to be incorrect. He noted that they were following t:he guidelines in the Downtown Specific Plan and that they were not requesting increased density; they intended to fit into the density set forth in that Plan. He noted that they wished to rezone the property from R-1-6,500 to the current density. He noted that they came up with the development and design based cn the guidelines set forth by the City for this particular site. He stated that he did not believe they were too far from what was proposed in the Specific Plan. He noted that they were a local builder that they were conscious of the area, and tried to create quality products. He noted that he had just completed a project in Livermore, on the corner of Chestnut and L Street, which was a redevelopment project. He noted that they turned that blighted property into eight nice homes. He noted that was their main focus and added that creating infill housing was challenging. He noted that there were developers who would not do mull housing. He noted that they had a strong background in construction for over 30 years and EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 9 of 17