My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 062211
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
PC 062211
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
7/18/2011 3:26:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/22/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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
indicated that he is very confident that everyone will all be moving forward and reach <br />goals that will be amenable to all the parties. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pentin disclosed that he met with the representatives of Kiewit, Legacy <br />Partners, and Pleasanton Gateway. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson disclosed that he exchanged emails with the representatives of <br />Pleasanton Gateway and with Auf der Maur/Rickenbach. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank disclosed that he exchanged emails with the representatives of <br />Pleasanton Gateway and some others. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce disclosed that she met with the representatives of Pleasanton <br />Gateway, Auf der Maur/Rickenbach, and Kiewit. <br /> <br />Chair Narum disclosed that she met with representatives of Pleasanton Gateway, Auf <br />der Maur/Rickenbach, Kiewit, and Legacy Partners. <br /> <br />Commissioner <br />Gateway and Auf der Maur/Rickenbach. <br /> <br />Referring to Ms. Allen's comments regarding Auf der Maur/Rickenbach (Site 8), <br />Commissioner Pearce inquired whether or not, if the Commission were to theoretically <br />decide to retain the 5.3 acres, it would necessarily preclude a future discussion about <br />this project designating 11.5 acres for residential. <br /> <br />Mr. Dolan replied that it might not because the HCD discussion is almost an accounting <br />game of achieving a certain number of acreage at a certain density. He added that this <br />could probably be developed as such, but the objection is not to the accounting game <br />but to the total number of units, and it all depends on what the Commission ends up <br />zoning the remainder. He noted that if the Commission zoned just 5.3 acres at high <br />density, then there is a left-over chunk for what was envisioned to be commercial, and if <br />retail is placed in the corners, the remainder will most likely not remain as commercial <br />but probably will ultimately be lower density residential. He indicated that whether or <br />not that project could fit exactly would depend on what density is put on the remainder. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce stated that she understands the objection to be more regarding <br />the public outreach and potential change rather than the number of units that was not <br />discussed in the multiple communities meetings held by the Task Force. She <br />acknowledged that ultimately, there may be an objection to the number of units, but the <br />objection she has heard currently is regarding the public outreach. She indicated that <br />she understood there are already zoning designations on this parcel, but wanted to <br />understand the community's concern regarding public outreach, given that 11.5 acres <br />was not in chart that has been presented multiple times to the community. She added <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 22, 2011 Page 20 of 33 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.