My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
12 ATTACHMENTS
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2009
>
102009
>
12 ATTACHMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2009 11:21:06 AM
Creation date
10/14/2009 3:03:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
10/20/2009
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
12 ATTACHMENTS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
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).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Dolan stated that he understood Commissioner Olson's question as whether or not <br /> the City's obligation is only to rezone. He confirmed that the City's obligation under the <br /> Housing Element law is only to rezone. <br /> Commissioner Olson stated that, regardless of a Negative Declaration, many issues <br /> were brought up tonight which can be dealt with during the PUD process. He indicated <br /> that he felt it does not make sense to add a housing component to a situation where the <br /> City is out of capacity prior to that addition. <br /> Ms. Stern confirmed that the issues raised would be dealt with during the PUD process. <br /> Commissioner Olson stated that he believes a subcommittee would most likely come to <br /> that conclusion based upon public input and that the process should move in that <br /> direction. <br /> Commissioner Narum inquired if, in the event the Commission approves the rezoning, <br /> some retail and services be included in addition to housing. She noted that she felt this <br /> may be in conflict with components and programs of the General Plan which were cited <br /> in the staff report. <br /> Mr. Dolan replied that a follow -up development is evaluated against the policies that <br /> exist. He added that there is a possibility, but with no guarantee, that there will be an <br /> exploration of the City's ability to provide retail because this is a component of a true <br /> transit oriented development. He noted that part of the PUD process will be an <br /> evaluation of what the retail demand is, which will be indicated by an on -going study <br /> during the PUD process. He indicated that it is somewhat premature to include that <br /> requirement because the numbers are yet unknown; however, he noted that retail is a <br /> vital component of transit oriented development. <br /> Commissioner Narum inquired whether, if the study should state that there is enough <br /> mass to support some retail but the PUD is only for residential, there would be an <br /> opportunity to reject the PUD based upon the fact that there is enough demand to <br /> support the retail and that it is not consistent with, for example, Program 2.1. <br /> Mr. Dolan replied that if those turn out to be the facts, it is unlikely that a positive <br /> recommendation will be developed by staff and that it would be legitimate for the <br /> Commission to come to that conclusion in its recommendation to City Council. <br /> Commissioner Narum inquired if all of the units need to be low- and very -low- income <br /> units. She noted that the City's policy is that these types of housing be dispersed <br /> throughout the community. <br /> Mr. Dolan replied that there is some misconception regarding what would occur if a <br /> project were to develop. He stated that the State requires a zoning of a minimum of <br /> 30 units per acre but does not require all the units to be affordable. He added that the <br /> affordability component would be what is required by the City's inclusionary ordinance. <br /> DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 9/23/2009 Page 9 of 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.