My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
13
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2016
>
090616
>
13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2016 1:49:21 PM
Creation date
8/31/2016 3:01:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
9/6/2016
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
13
Document Relationships
13 ATTACHMENT 3
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2016\090616
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
163
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
Chair Ritter: ...so if we made it flexible? <br /> Commissioner Balch: Therein lies the discussion. Do you want someone to have a <br /> bedroom in that room or not is really what you need to answer. <br /> Commissioner Nagler: So the issue is Commissioner Allen is pointing out that if it ends <br /> up residential, this problem should have required a General Plan Amendment. <br /> Commissioner Allen: Maybe you should check with Julie on that, but that's my point. It's <br /> less than 10% and it's really a residential project if you don't do much more. <br /> Commissioner Balch: But if you kick it to office for example, you kick your parking up <br /> possibly another notch. <br /> Commissioner Nagler: The question is whether we want to eliminate the flexibility going <br /> forward in order to allow this for sure to not be a General Plan Amendment. <br /> Commissioner Allen: Should we ask staff their perspective on this? <br /> Chair Ritter: What are you hearing us say staff? <br /> Weinstein: I don't think you should get hung up on a threshold for the amount of <br /> commercial space on this site. It's a PUD and there's not a specification in the <br /> Downtown Specific Plan for what the square footage should be. A thorough reading of <br /> the Downtown Specific Plan is that the entire ground floor of an office site should be <br /> office, right? So we really backed away from that. I want to be really clear about that. <br /> This is already a very flexible interpretation of what the DSP calls for, but staffs position <br /> has always been that all of the buildings along Old Bernal should have street front <br /> commercial space. And we feet pretty strongly about that and that's why we imposed a <br /> condition that says that the new space added to Residence 1 should be commercial <br /> space. I think Commissioner Allen is exactly right; that it's just not a lot of commercial <br /> space overall and I think we are sort of pushing what the office district means and we're <br /> really appreciative of the effort that the applicant has made in redesigning that little <br /> space, but it doesn't seem too much of an ask to make that commercial and not have it <br /> be used as residential because I think if we added the flexibility in this housing market, <br /> it's going to be a residential space. It's not going to be a commercial space, so it didn't <br /> seem to us to be that much of an ask and the applicant is getting a really good amount <br /> of residential space out of this project in this office district. It's not a residential district, <br /> so that's our position. <br /> Commissioner Nagler: To put it in practical terms, if this space on Residence 1 were <br /> required to be commercial space, I guess the owner of the building could rent the space <br /> out to somebody else, right? A law firm? <br /> Commissioner Balch: A law firm, a one man architect, you know, accountant. <br /> Commissioner Nagler: Okay. <br /> Commissioner Balch: Can I make a motion? <br /> EXCERPT: DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 13, 2016 Page 18 of 21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.