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
Weinstein: If I could just add to that really quickly too, I think it also makes sense to tackle the <br /> district as part of the Downtown Specific Plan because the downtown is really a complete <br /> organism. Its districts sort of work in conjunction with each other and it's possible as well that <br /> there might be tweaks to the Central-Commercial district as well and that could also affect how <br /> we treat the Office district, so it seems to make sense to do everything together just to make <br /> sure that the land uses are compatible and sort of work off each other. <br /> Commissioner Brown: My preference was that it be addressed as part of the Downtown <br /> Specific Plan. In fairness to the applicant, I wanted to ask the question in terms of are the <br /> timelines coincidental, which you explained they are. So if the recommendation was to wait <br /> until the Downtown Specific Plan, then that's the time I'm looking at versus approving this as a <br /> one-off, knowing that it may trigger additional properties that would potentially have to be <br /> resolved before that Specific Plan came about. Thank you. <br /> Commissioner Nagler: So there's nothing else specifically other than responses that we came <br /> up with today other that the big question that's unanswered. <br /> Commissioner Balch: For me, maybe it would just be for staff is how we would handle this <br /> Residence 1 as Gerry put forth a very good plan to do it, and I don't want my comments tonight <br /> to give it more weight to go that route, but I think that's got to be addressed. <br /> Chair Ritter: Okay, the only other thing I would like to see is that they do analysis of <br /> office/commercial; a projection like a normal real estate analysis that is probably out there <br /> already just in case there's any proposal so we know what the current and future needs are <br /> based on the market studies they've done for office, residential, and retail in Pleasanton. Can <br /> they do that for a segment of the town? <br /> Commissioner Brown: The PDA does it. <br /> Beaudin: And we also have the civic center task force analysis which is across the street. We <br /> can make sure that it gets around to the commission. <br /> Chair Ritter: But even when the proposal comes, just have that be part of the analysis so we <br /> can understand why we might have to change it based on market needs of our residents. <br /> Okay, we're good? Okay, staff, did you get enough feedback? <br /> Amos: Yes, thank you. <br /> Commissioner Balch: Are we at least more consistent for staff now? Are we a more unified <br /> message? <br /> Amos: I can say yes. <br /> No action was taken. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 25, 2016 Page 22 of <br /> 22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.