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 />some of the residential buildings were treated, for example, Archstone was treated <br />differently than Verona: what the thinking was regarding why the cap was increased in <br />one and was not increased in the other. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that he does not think he can accurately report on that. He noted that <br />Mr. Paxson was around and might have some insight into that. <br />Commissioner Posson disclosed that he had some discussion with Mr. Paxson about <br />the history of the PUD's and the transportation limitations. <br />Commissioners Ritter and Allen indicated that they did as well. <br />Chair Pearce stated that she talks to Mr. Paxson all the time, and Commissioner Olson <br />stated that he also talked to Mr. Paxson, generally on this subject, over a year ago. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br />James Paxson, General Manager of Hacienda Business Park, stated that Hacienda <br />supports the staff report and the staff recommendation and concurs with all the findings <br />staff had made. He indicated that there are three points in particular that he wanted to <br />get to before he tries to answer Commissioner Allen's questions, which is going to be <br />mostly conjecture on his part but he thinks he can address at least some of it. <br />Mr. Paxson stated that first, it is really important to underscore the competitiveness <br />issue. He emphasized that this is really a very competitive region and it is extremely <br />important that the City and Hacienda do whatever it can to position the Park so as it can <br />begin to experience the recovery that the region is in right now and take advantage of <br />the opportunities that come up. He indicated that this does a lot toward helping to <br />position Hacienda and the City to be able to capitalize on those opportunities. <br />Mr. Paxson continued that the second thing that he really wants to emphasize was kind <br />of brought up in the report and which he also kind of touched in his letter that is in the <br />Commission's packet: there is nowhere else in the City where the City has the <br />opportunity to simultaneously meet several really important objectives that are outlined <br />in the General Plan — sustainability, environmental objectives, economic objectives, and <br />place- making objectives. He noted that all of those things happen in Hacienda in a way <br />that cannot happen elsewhere. <br />Mr. Paxson stated that the third really important thing is kind of an offshoot of the <br />second. He noted that nowhere else in the City has it already been paid for and is <br />continuing to be paid for other than in Hacienda. He indicated that the Park was <br />bonded to the tune of about $5.50 per square foot of indebtedness to build all of the <br />improvements that are there now and beyond. He noted that Hacienda had built way <br />more than the Park and, as staff has pointed out, the capacity built in the Park was for <br />something much larger than what it is permitted to build today; in addition, Hacienda will <br />maintain that until 2039. He noted that, for example and to give an idea, just in straight <br />DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 8/28/2013 Page 5 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.