My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 07/07/99
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
PC 07/07/99
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:06:40 PM
Creation date
10/24/2001 5:14:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/7/1999
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 07/07/99
NOTES
BERNAL PROP PUBLIC HEARING
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Francisco, who would face no phasing under its Alameda County option. <br />In agreeing to conform its project to Pleasanton's growth management <br />program, San Francisco strongly negotiated for the flexibility it is allowed <br />under the agreement to partially shift units between the regular allocation <br />and the affordable housing allocation. This flexibility would be <br />compromised if the affordable project were required to be built in an early <br />phase. Nevertheless, the possibility of postponing the affordable project <br />until dead last was not contemplated by either side in reaching this <br />schedule; in fact, both believe it is desirable to move the affordable project <br />forward, which is now allowed. Changing economics of multi-family <br />development as well as its location as an <br />"early-to-reach-with-infrastructure" site have made its early development <br />likely. Nonetheless, the program would allow its deferral to last. San <br />Francisco has not been amenable to allowing any City discretion to revisit <br />its phasing schedule (or other aspects of the project, per the Preannexation <br />Development Agreement). This key issue is discussed later under <br />"Limitation on New Requirements/Normal City Police Power," #27 <br />below. <br /> <br />Principles of Agreement: Specifies the growth management allocation/program as <br /> drafted in the initial approvals. <br /> <br />StaffRecommendation: It makes sense to update the phasing schedule (reallocate 1999 <br /> and, possibly, 2000 yearly allocations). Staff would support mandating <br /> the affordable project be built early in the project's development. See #27 <br /> for staff recommendation concerning on-going project <br /> review/modification. <br /> <br />Commercial/Office Development <br /> <br />Issue: Should five-story buildings be allowed? <br /> <br />Proposed Project: Allows buildings in the Village Center up to five stories in height. <br /> <br />Alternatives: <br /> Reduce allowable height to three or four stories. <br /> <br />Discussion: <br /> <br />The City increased allowable commercial/office square footage from <br />577,000 square feet to 750,000 square feet in the Village Center and <br />reduced the acreage devoted to this use from 50+ acres to 36.8 acres in <br />order to achieve increased park amenities. This necessarily increased the <br />FAR's and building heights. The Village Center's overall FAR is now <br />about 47%, with no housing. Four-story office buildings, surface-parked, <br />can achieve up to 50% FAR; five-story buildings, up to 60%. If <br />significant residential uses are built over retail commercial, the office use <br /> <br />Substantive Issues/Alternatives Page 10 June 9, 1999 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.