My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 052511
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
PC 052511
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
7/18/2011 3:23:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/25/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
out that if the City is going to have density above what it normally has, this would be the <br />site to have it. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce stated she was simply curious as to how they arrived at the <br />number. She indicated that she toured Pleasant Hill as part of the Hacienda Task Force <br />and inquired what its density is. <br /> <br />Chair Narum replied that she believed it was 55 dwelling units to an acre. <br /> <br />Mr. Williams stated that depending on how it is calculated, portions of it are 55 dwelling <br />units per acre, and other portions are up to 80 dwelling units per acre. He added that in <br />South San Francisco, there is a seven-acre site, with structures no taller than three <br />stories, that has achieved 50 dwelling units per acre. He noted that Pleasanton can get <br />the 75 dwelling units per acre with a maximum of four to five stories in different portions <br />of the site. He further noted that those buildings would still be in scale of the other <br />buildings within the Hacienda Business Park and still not come close to the 85-foot <br />height limit of the other office buildings there. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank stated that a lot of people have approached him about density, <br />and he commented that he thinks that care should be taken in terms of the guidelines <br />as it is so early on in the project, and the City wants to encourage interest in the site as <br />development. <br /> <br />Mr. Dolan stated that 85 feet tall residential building sounds scary, but he noted that as <br />presented earlier, densities can be approached in much lower heights. He stated that if <br />the Commission wants to remove some of the fear factor from the community, the <br />Commission can go down this line when it comes time to refine these things. <br /> <br />Mr. Fleissig stated that with respect to cost implication, if the developer constructs at <br />65 feet, which is the type of construction seen throughout the Bay Area, and the <br />developer wanted to add two or three more levels, it would become a different type of <br />construction which is much more costly. He indicated that he is not conceding that this <br />is the normal prototype that would likely be built, but he would like to see what would <br />happen with structured parking that was built as part of this shared parking idea. He <br />added that maybe because this has been so successful and there are people who want <br />to work and live in proximity, and people would like to get up and see some gorgeous <br />views there, that maybe the numbers will change on construction. He stated that they <br />would like to leave appropriately where the structure is located, so that the notion of <br />how this would all work is someone who for some reason wanted it to be 85 feet high in <br />a specific area or to emphasize a certain corner to have a little bit more height is given <br />the opportunity to sculpt it. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank stated that he thinks perhaps the City might want to engage in an <br />educational or outreach process with the community. He noted that there are many <br />third rails in Pleasanton politics, and height is one of them. He added that if folks <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 25, 2011 Page 13 of 21 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.