12 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT going to be a substitute or trade -off for non - residential or commercial development. He stated that that would not be the right thing to do. Mr. Inderbitzen stated that competitiveness and timing are worth mentioning again. He mentioned an example that probably could not occur in Hacienda under this current environment that did occur just across the street off of Hopyard Road: the expansion of the site for Clorox to come to Pleasanton. He noted that when a hot opportunity like that comes around with a piece of property that is available, one has to be really proactive and reactive in order to get those projects in and built in a timely fashion. He added that with every additional step in the approval process, even if California Center were singled -out moving forward, Mr. Paxson and the Hacienda Owners Association are going to have to deal with this issue with every one of those projects that brushes up against the cap. He encouraged the Commission to move this forward, sooner rather than later, adding that they are also anxious to move forward. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allen shared that she really struggled with this project and was hoping to get some feedback from others that might help her think this one through because she is still trying to absorb some of the information. She indicated that she is very supportive of high- density residential in Hacienda. She noted that she had been at all the Housing Commission Meetings early on, fighting for that and wishing it would go to Hacienda as that is a perfect fit. She expressed concern with exempting all of the seven sites mentioned. She stated that she is fine with California Center because it is required as to support RHNA, and that was one that the Commission pushed for and were under the gun to do so, and that it would now need to be followed through and allowed to go forward. She added, however, that she was troubled with the others. Commissioner Allen stated that in the big picture, she is thinking of them like Archstone, the Sienna property, and several others where, for the most part, there is land. She referred to the Pleasanton Gateway project, where land that was zoned commercial was allowed by the City to be used for residential, resulting in a win -win for both the City and the developers. Referring back to the case tonight, she noted that the developers chose to build residential on these sites, not commercial, because that makes sense for them. She further noted that had commercial been built on those sites, commercial would have counted against the cap; therefore, since they chose to build residential, it would seem residential should count against the cap as well because the land is now used. Commissioner Allen stated that she is troubled with the idea that, aside from California Center and potentially the BART location because that is a little different, the Commission may be setting a precedent that other Councils and Commissions will have to deal with should this come up many years down the line. She indicated that she had been sending many letters to staff today, but really looking at Verona and all of those properties and the intent, as she read the ordinance and spent many hours on it, it is very clear to her that the cap that was identified in the current ordinance, the reason it DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 8/28/2013 Page 7 of 11