09 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Page 1 of 1 Steve Otto From: nancy alien ~ Sent: Sunday, July O6, 2008 11:44 PM To: Steve Otto Subject: RE: Ponderosa meeting tomorrow night at Planning commission Steve, I will not be able to attend the planning meeting this Wed. and would appreciate if you could include my comments in the record for the Planning Commission. Thank you. Nancy Allen I do not support moving forvvaM with the Ponderosa expansion at this time for 3 reasons: 1) On a macro level, the traffic study shows that adding these homes will make traffic even worse (over 500 more trips/day) on a road that is already at unacceptable levels in the p.m. and challenged in the a.m. This is a major commute road for thousands of residents and workers a day. A couple seconds here and there for over 10,000 residents/workers each day using this road does make adifference - 2,000 hours of lost timetyear. To approve more homes in an area with already unacceptable traffic delays and not a defined circulation solution in the near term does not appear fair or responsible. Please build the necessary infrastructure first before adding more houses. Suggest: Let's wait until the GP and SDE timing is better defined and consider this project at such time that we know we will have a circulation plan that can support it. We should not be adding more development that adds more traffic to Valley and Santa Rita without first having a SDE and a Busch extension to Valley in place. 2) Pleasanton has a very limited number of new homes that can be developed to achieve buildout. To add 110 homes in advance of having the gameplan for buildout seems premature. Especially when we know there may be major buildout requests around the corner with the quarry sale. We recommend that the Planning leadership and Council first develop the gameplan for the remaining buildout which should be part of the GP (rst. It does not seem right to make short term decisions like this in advance on upcoming longer term decisions as this could suboptimize our city economics and planning process. 3) On a more tactical level, I question how far, if at all, this development helps Pleasanton's senior housing needs (as this project appear to be positioned as helping senior housing). Not sure that we need specialized senior housing of this type that is in a gated community (gated communities frequently have challenges with emergency access), not near public transportatiomor next to a hospital, sizable 2 car garages, and likely over $1 M per home. Again if the goal is to increase senior housing, let's step back and make sure we have the right development in place to meet the very limited housing starts that we can provide under our housing cap. you for your consideration. Nancy Allen