26 - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 2: PUBLIC COMMENTS From: Mike Carey [mailto: Sent:Wednesday, December 12,2018 3:58 PM To: ; Megan Campbell; Ellen Clark; ; Subject: Downtown Specific Plan Draft Comments-Council/Planning Commission and staff. Hello all, attached is the Housing Element adopted and approved by the City in 2015. It provides great direction on the City's goals and intentions for the future. In regards to the New Proposed Downtown Specific Plan Draft (DSP) which is now being distributed for comment, there is a direct disconnect and missed opportunity as many of the proposed land use goals and new policies suggested directly conflict with the vision statement ("Downtown will realize its full potential offering a safe, livable and Vibrant experience") as well as 2015 Housing Element approved Policies, Objectives and Goals and implementing programs that were adopted by our City and sent to the State (pages 2-4). Page 5, Policy 1, 1.1, - Page 7 program 6.3- Page 10 program 11.1- Page 13 policy 14- (Page 15 program 14.9) -AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW- evaluate cities effectiveness of what they are encouraging in this document. Page 19 policy 18, 22- Page 20 Policy 25 (The Highest Priority for City Approval) - Page 21 program 25.1 -Page 22 Policy 26 (Second Highest Priority for City Approval) Policy 27( Third highest priority, Build Small Units) - Page 23 Goal 12, policy 28,29 Program 29.2(Do not constrain process) - (****Page 25 Goal 15, Policy 35,35.1, 36, 36.1,36.2 -Page 26 Program 36.3 -Page 27 Policy 39 -Page 33 Policy 46, program 46.1 -********) The Housing Element must be considered and incorporated into the DSP process and final document so we are cohesive and all our city's documents compliment each other not contradict. One of the main reasons we are renewing this process is the Guiding documents don't currently work together. Downtown Specific Plan page 57 - LD 1.4- Reduce all PUD's to 30' - What is the history/reason and vote where this change? (Reducing current rules). The whole town of Pleasanton is allowed 30' by right - why would we restrict options and potential through 2040 with this proposal? PUDS must get Planning Commission and City Council approval and are full of a lengthy public process. We have multiple housing PUDS now that were fully approved by Planning Commission and City Council currently under construction at approximately 31-34'. The City has also extended the DSP boundary to include the Sunflower Hill site on Stanley Blvd and they are building (today) 34' tall approved housing. The beautiful City of Pleasanton-built Kottinger Gardens 3-Story Senior Housing project which is less than 100' outside of the DSP Boundary on Second St is 34' -35' tall and is a great community benefit. Are we being conscious and consistent with what we are building today with what we may not allow tomorrow? (Please Remove LD 1.4 from the DSP Draft recommendations.) 9