My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 092513
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
PC 092513
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:57:17 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 3:50:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/25/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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
only place that the City will really be short on any of the Alternatives is the Moderate, <br />which the City will have to find some of. <br />Commissioner Ritter requested confirmation that that is for all of Pleasanton and not just <br />East Pleasanton. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that was correct, although the City might have a little extra <br />30- units - per -acre that the City could say is Moderate, but the City might not want to <br />waste that on the Moderate. <br />Chair Pearce stated that there are some discussion points but noted that she feels the <br />Commission has already answered them. She asked Mr. Dolan if staff wanted the <br />Commission to go over these. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that all that is really needed is for the Commission to come to a <br />consensus on a Preferred Alternative or if it has some suggestions on one or more of <br />the other Alternatives. <br />Commissioner O'Connor stated that as he mentioned earlier, he remembers a smaller <br />plan with somewhere between 1,400 and 1,500 units, possibly the 1,430 -unit Plan that <br />was brought up by a couple of speakers. He indicated that he would actually like to see <br />that Plan brought back so it could be studied in the EIR. He pointed out that the reason <br />he is asking for that is because right now, there are three variations of Options 5, and <br />they all have the same number of units but tweaked a bit differently. He stated that he <br />thinks it would be easier if the Option 5 came back looking like the Preferred Plan, and it <br />would be easier to have something tweaked out of it and coming up with a third Plan if <br />there were only two in the study. He indicated that he does not care if all three are kept <br />in the study, but he thinks it is harder to jump back and try and find a midpoint where <br />that mix or numbers have to be changed. He added that he would like to get the <br />1,430 -unit Plan that was presented at the last Work Session dropped back in as an <br />Option so it could be looked at, either as a seventh Plan or as an Option replacing <br />Option 5A or Option 5B. He added that he thinks it would add more value if there were <br />a Plan that 1,000 units, 1,300 units, 1,400 plus, then jump to 1,700 and then to 2,200. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that staff anticipated that comment and actually has a previous <br />Alternative, although with a twist on it, created tonight. He indicated that this was done <br />back when staff was still working with a 50/50 single - family vs. multi - family. <br />Commissioner O'Connor stated that the Commission did talk at that Work Session <br />about going as far as 65/35. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that was correct. He added that what he was saying is that staff <br />grabbed this at the last minute because staff heard some rumblings about this desire <br />today. He noted that staff did not adjust it to a different unit mix, and if the Commission <br />wants a 1,430 staff needs to know if the Commission wants that done at 65/35 like the <br />Task Force's ratio. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 25, 2013 Page 41 of 45 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.