My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 062514
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
PC 062514
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:16:41 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 4:12:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/25/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
Mr. Dolan added that some of them also score better for various funding opportunities, <br />proximity to various services, and allow for different financing instruments to be used. <br />Chair O'Connor stated that he knows there is a tear down involved, but it is usually <br />cheaper to build an under - utilized site because it already has services right there, as <br />well as streets and infrastructure, as opposed to some of the vacant sites. <br />Mr. Dolan agreed that it could be but that it depends on the circumstances of each <br />property. <br />Chair O'Connor asked staff if the Commission should make any sort of decision before <br />concluding Part I and moving on to Part II. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that this is not a decision - making hearing, and there is no motion <br />necessary or action to take, just feedback. He indicated that there is no Task Force this <br />time; staff is using the Planning Commission as its sounding board, and it provides an <br />opportunity to talk about this in public. He added that staff has heard the comments and <br />stated that the document will come back to the Commission later, and based on <br />whatever was discussed tonight, staff will either have made a change or explain why no <br />change was made. <br />Part II — Specific Sites <br />Commissioner Balch recused himself due to a conflict of interest. <br />Ms. Wallis presented the staff report and described the scope and key elements of the <br />two properties: the Irby - Kaplan -Zia site and the former CM Capital site. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that he wanted to add a few things about why the list was narrowed <br />down. He stated that when staff checked -in with the Commission at a previous Work <br />Session, staff had provided a longer list, and that was because staff opened up the <br />process to various people, or people heard that new properties were going to be <br />considered as part of the Housing Element and then those who really wanted to develop <br />something over the next years better get on the list or it is never going to happen. He <br />indicated that this brought a bunch of people rushing forward, and staff was taken aback <br />a bit and did not expect to get that level of participation. He added that a couple of <br />public meetings were held, and staff realized that if that big long list was really going to <br />be included for consideration, there would not be enough time before the deadline for <br />the Housing Element as CEQA would have to be done on all of them and that could not <br />be done. He indicated that staff really did not have a choice because this is just an <br />update after the major comprehensive rewrite and would be fairly routine, just tightening <br />up and updating of some data. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that there were two lingering site issues that came out of those public <br />meetings: one was the continued interest in the people who own the Irby - Kaplan -Zia <br />property because they just missed the list the last time; and second, the Parkside <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 25, 2014 Page 14 of 29 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.