My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
12
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2013
>
091713
>
12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/25/2013 12:22:22 PM
Creation date
9/12/2013 4:21:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
9/17/2013
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
12
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
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
DRAFT <br />who is most familiar with the technicalities of tracking is Mike Tassano, City Traffic <br />Engineer, who is also present tonight to answer any questions. <br />Mr. Dolan also acknowledged that he had conversations with Commissioner Allen about <br />whether or not this would be more appropriately first brought forward in a workshop so <br />the Commission could have more time with the issue. He indicated that he decided not <br />to do that, but should the Commission need to take more time to absorb some parts of <br />this proposal, the Commission has the ability to do that. He further indicated that he <br />tried to keep his presentation simple so it was easily understandable should the <br />Commission wanted to move forward. <br />Commissioner Allen inquired what the trigger is for bringing this proposal forward now <br />versus waiting for a longer term look at a unified program to clarify how development <br />will be counted in the future. She further inquired if the trigger is mainly the California <br />Center project. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that the trigger for right now is California Center. He explained, <br />however, that what is being talked about in the future is a processing methodology, and <br />this is sort of the substance of whether or not they are exempt. He noted that there are <br />other projects that have been out there that will require the square footage at some <br />point. He further noted that several years ago, there has been a proposal that actually <br />got a complete application for additional development on the California Center site that <br />was not originally anticipated in the current approval. He indicated that it got the same <br />nod from Hacienda, with the same condition that it receive additional capacity from the <br />City. He continued that that proposal has been on hold, and part of the property that <br />would have housed that project was used for the housing that was ultimately proposed <br />on California Center. He added that staff does not really know what that will ultimately <br />look like, but he believes that California Center plans on coming forward. He further <br />added that California Center is a unique site; it is a very large site but is considered to <br />be inefficiently development because it does not have very much development on it <br />now. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that there is a natural evolution of the Park where additional <br />development proposals are anticipated, although this might not happen immediately. <br />He indicated that he does not know the exact timing but he has an example in the <br />building at 4225 Hacienda Drive at Gibraltar Drive: a 22 -acre site that is developed with <br />an industrial use, very lightly utilized and very underutilized; additional development is <br />inevitable, and additional office development will be expected and necessary down the <br />road. <br />Commissioner Allen stated that being new to the Planning Commission and not being <br />around, like most of the Commissioners, when the Hacienda ordinances were adopted, <br />approved, she is always looking at intent, what happened when the existing ordinance <br />was adopted. She inquired what the original thinking was behind this square footage <br />originally assigned to Hacienda; what the thinking was behind the changes in 1992 and <br />with the additional changes that occurred in 1993; and what the implications are on how <br />DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 8/28/2013 Page 4 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.