12 ATTACHMENT 6 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Giffin stated that the only other thing he wants to say is that he was very happy with the detailing on the garages at the entrance to West Las Positas Boulevard, where the simulation focuses on one of the buildings that does not have garages. He indicated that the garages to the right, to the south of their project, also directly face Chamberlain, and he requested that they have similar detailing to the garages to the front of the project so they are also attractive and do not appear to be kind of the back of the development Karen Eligas, a Parkside resident, stated that they formed a committee and five members of Parkside will be speaking. She indicated that tagging onto what Mr. Natsch mentioned earlier, they have listed 14 items that were a concern to the neighbors, in order of importance, some of which have already been addressed and which has been very encouraging: 14. Assess the availability of neighborhood parks for the unit residents. Pleasanton has a neighborhood park philosophy; where would the neighborhood park be for this particular development? 13. Location of the dumpsters, which has been addressed. 12. Balconies, which has been addressed. 11 No dogs permitted in the residential units. There is an issue with that many potential animals on that site and the problems that would arise from that. 10. The traffic impact of the development. There surely are traffic impact studies for that. 9. Location and elimination of the swimming pool. That has been addressed. 8. Open up the discussion on the Below-Market Rate (BMR) housing. This has been discussed. 7. Eliminate the three-bedroom units; limit the number of bedrooms to two or less. 6. Smoking ordinance. What is it for the City of Pleasanton? 5. Include underground parking in the design. That is something they would like. 4; Landscaping and hardscaping concerns. The developer seems to be working very well on this. 3. Security, privacy, access to the Arroyo. The plans appear to show no access to the Arroyo. 2. Number of stories limited to two or less from our view. This has been been addressed. 1. Impact of development on schools. Provide access to the report Ms. Soo talked about. Ms. Eligas asked about the possibility of the applicant providing a two feet by four feet (2' x 4') model of the proposed project`so people can see what it actually might look like. Joanie Chidambaram, a Parkside resident, asked if Summerhill will redraw the plans. She stated that the development would be visible from her home and that she specifically told the applicant that she was interested in seeing what the development was going to look like from their home. She pointed out that the slide presented earlier of the view from the south did not include Buildings A and B, and she does not believe they are far away enough that they would not be visible. She indicated that she thinks EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 22, 2014 Page 8 of 16