09 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

consideration by the Commission. She indicated that the first one would be Condition No. 18.c. regarding retaining walls, which is specifically required to be part of the development plan but which staff believes could be taken out and made a separate condition with the addition of the language "for review and approval at the Tentative Map stage," as it is really a part of the grading and drainage plans, and there may be other considerations by the time the fine grading is completed. Ms. Decker noted that the second condition related to street widths, Condition No. 67 under Engineering requirements, where staff could add a new Condition, No. 67.g. as follows: "The applicant shall work with staff to design the street section to provide sidewalks on both sides of the street by reducing the street width, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Community Development at the Tentative Map approval stage." Ms. Decker added that staff would like to modify Condition No. 69 regarding filtration as follows: "The applicant shall work with staff to provide storm water treatment design solutions for review and approval by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Community Development." She added that in this way, the City conditions the optimum design solution. Mr. Dolan made a correction to his response to Commissioner Fox's question regarding the East Side Specific Plan bordering the project site. He stated that the property to the east is owned by Legacy, which is part of the Specific Plan area. Commissioner Fox noted that if a motion were made for approval, she would not support the project because of the following issues: She believes projects for senior housing should be within the 1,200- to 2,300-square-foot range so that an average senior in the City would have the ability to truly downsize and be able to afford it. She noted that she felt senior housing should be aimed for those currently in Pleasanton and she would like to see smaller and less expensive houses. 2. She would like to see the East Side Specific Plan done in conjunction with this project because the Closed Session that occurred at the School Board meeting to decide not to take the option for a high school was not a public meeting, so people did not know that the school site option was passed upon. 3. Regarding a gated community, she did not believe it conforms to the General Plan and does not support a project that does not support the General Plan. 4. She believes the project is too dense, specifically Lots 21, 63, and 70, some of which are bordered by multiple lots in their rear and side yards. 5. She does not believe there is sufficient parking for the recreation area and would like to see the recreation area and community center moved so that it would EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 9, 2008 Page 17 of 20