My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 061213
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
PC 061213
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:46:43 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 3:41:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/12/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
The next two columns get to the direction that staff received from the Planning <br />Commission that, based on a 75- percent single - family and 25- percent <br />multi - family, Alternative 1 with 1,000 units would result in a split of 750/250; the <br />breakdown for the other Alternatives are shown when applied to 1,426 units for <br />Alternative 2: 1.710 units for Alternative 3: 1.283 units for Alternative 4. <br />The last two columns show that if the range of numbers of units are somewhere <br />in the vicinity of 1,000 units up to 1,700 units — and the Task Force, at its last <br />meeting, actually added a couple of alternatives that creep up a little bit above <br />those numbers but not too much — then the City is only going to accommodate <br />somewhere in the range of 12 percent to 21 percent of the multi - family <br />requirements over the next two RHNA periods in the East Pleasanton Specific <br />Plan area, thus leaving a demand of anywhere between approximately <br />1,600 units to almost 1,800 units for which other sites would have to be <br />designated elsewhere in the City. <br />Mr. Dolan recalled for those among the Commissioners who went through the last <br />Housing Element process that this was not an easy task. He noted that there were a <br />few sites that scored really well in the ratings process that did not get selected, with two <br />of the best ones actually being in the East side. He indicated that there was a lot of <br />discussion about the Kiewit property and the Legacy property at that time, but these did <br />not make the list and were going to be saved for the next time around. He added that <br />there was also the Irby property, which scored really well but did not make the final cut. <br />Mr. Dolan continued that after these sites, the City will be looking at new sites that have <br />not really been talked about before. He indicated that this can be done but noted that <br />staff did not really take the next step and explore the implications of the Planning <br />Commission's direction, and would like to circle back to the Commission, before it <br />checks -in with the City Council next week, and see if the Commission had any <br />additional comments based on this information. <br />Commissioner O'Connor asked Mr. Dolan how many acres were rezoned last time to <br />meet the RHNA numbers. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that there were 70 acres. <br />Commissioner O'Connor commented that with these numbers, the City would be <br />looking at about 60 acres, in the 1,800 -unit range at 30 units to the acre, which is pretty <br />close to the same amount as last time. <br />Mr. Dolan noted that was correct. <br />Commissioner O'Connor stated that what he finds interesting about this calculation is <br />that even with the highest development, Alternative 3, which got most of the criticism at <br />the last meeting, it would be off only by about less than 200 units, which is really not a <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 12, 2013 Page 8 of 25 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.