Irby, Kaplan and Zia families, Please don't sell!!!

Marie,

"Don't sell" Right, because the trash filled vacant fields are better than nice new homes. Not to mention the numbers of homeless people living in the arroyo that are breaking into the empty homes on the property. I hope the city works with the builder and makes a nice gate way to downtown.

Will these new homes be equipped with composting toilets?

It's unfortunate that the City has already approved the massive, 'stack 'n pack' 345 apartments + retail complex (aka PUD-87) at Stanley and Bernal that's being built right now (across from the McDonalds). The traffic impacts from that are going to be significant.

I applaud the Sunflower Hill project, but adding 95 single family homes to the mix?

I don't see how either the existing or proposed road infrastructure (the latter of which is just dumping more traffic onto Bernal Avenue and First Street/Stanley Blvd. will be able to successfully support that, as adding those 95 homes alone puts the new housing total in that area up to 440, not including the Sunflower Hill project.

The Planning Commission and City Council will need to carefully look at the traffic impacts (i.e., congestion) this overall project will add to First Street/Stanley, and to Bernal/Valley Avenue.

Traffic Engineer Mike Tassano has previously stated that First Street cannot be widened to accomodate more traffic, so the only available traffic flow relief will be to widen Bernal to 4 lanes from Valley/Stanley all the way southwest down to Sunol Blvd.

It's not going to be pretty.

Where there is land they will build and I believe this is a great opportunity the city is creating for our adult special needs population! People need to be more sensitive to the importance of the development and not so concerned with "more traffic"

I applaud all involved in Sunflower Hill!!

Traffic can be eased by putting El Charro Rd. thru to Stanley. This will cut down on cut thru traffic. 95 homes will not create that much traffic. McDonalds and Arco create 100 times the traffic of 95 homes.

A facility for special needs adults is one thing but there is no excuse for stuffing more housing into Pleasanton, particularly along that stretch where we've yet to see how severe the impact of the McDonald's-adjacent development will be. It's bad enough. Council, you've destroyed our city- enough already.

Steve, I dis agree with part of your comment. I live in the area, and believe that putting El Charro through to Stanley Boulevard will make an even greater traffic disaster for Stanley Boulevard, first Street, Bernal and Vineyard .

More development we don't need! 95 homes for special needs. I don't think so! Heavy water users

I'm guessing that all growth in this town is bad. We would rather our fields full of garbage and homeless rather than new homes. I get it we are here and no one else is wanted. I invite all of you to walk Stanley, California , Nevada St. and see if it is your picture of Pleasanton. We need to clean up this area and now there is someone who wants to improve the street and it's a bad thing? If you don't want single family homes on that land what do you want there? The families that own the land have a right to sell.

I'm guessing that all growth in this town is bad. We would rather our fields full of garbage and homeless rather than new homes. I get it we are here and no one else is wanted. I invite all of you to walk Stanley, California , Nevada St. and see if it is your picture of Pleasanton. We need to clean up this area and now there is someone who wants to improve the street and it's a bad thing? If you don't want single family homes on that land what do you want there? The families that own the land have a right to sell.

To clarify my earlier comment--- Although I'm opposed to any future extension of El Charro Rd, I think this project will have minimal traffic impact and be a good addition for Pleasanton.

Nancy My thought was that people using Stanley to get to Livermore could use El Charro to Stanley. I would hope that route would limit cut thru traffic from 580 to livermore. That was all I was saying.

I want to thank the Planning Commissioners for all their questions throughout the workshop and discussions that took place. Our community is a special place and we can have thoughtful dialog to provide a safe living environment for our special needs community. I look forward to continuing our discussions.

Where are the special needs "heavy water users" supposed to live?

Does anyone think that it is fair that the families that have owned the land forever shouldn't do what they want with their land? And we don't want commercial development across the street nor do we want vagrants and trash. The homes raise our property values and the homes are what create the special needs community so let it go!

Yes our neighborhood will be the most impacted by the action taken on the Irby property. It would be best to work with the city and the developer to ensure we keep our neighborhood nice. A residential development would be the best use for this land. The land will be developed and commercial or high density apartments weill not be in the best interest of our neighborhood. And for those who do not live across the street from the property should know there is trash, homeless and drug use one the property. Not a great way to represent our town.

I wholeheartedly support this community! It is currently zoned for commercial, so the single family neighborhood would be a much better use for that location, and better than another apartment project. The addition of a much needed special-needs component is a huge plus for Pleasanton.

Justifying another 95 homes that we don't need by throwing in a housing unit for special needs is pretty clever, kind of like justifying those 40 something homes for Lund Ranch II by claiming you can't see them because they will be built down in the "bowl" of the surrounding hills- nice try, I'm not biting on either project !!!! Just use that property for special needs and make the rest of it park land, or better yet use what's left over for free parking for black tie limo employees

Dear Flightops,
Whom do you propose should compensate the property owners should it be turned into a "park"? I believe we already have more than our fair share of parks as a City, personally. And as for the Lund II project, as a Park lover you should embrace the fact that the City will get 174 ACRES of permanent, public open space, 2 miles of Public trails, over $1M for our schools, and more. Just sayin' ...