My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 081314
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
PC 081314
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:19:41 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 4:14:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/13/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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 replied that it does not matter if the sites get built or not; what matters is that <br />the City make the case that the sites are viable. He added that it is also a lot easier to <br />make the case that a site is viable if it is vacant, and not all of the sites are. <br />Mr. Dolan then gave a quick summary of some of the issues that staff has heard during <br />the public outreach: <br />The CM Capital site, in terms of the volume, and the desire of the Parkside <br />neighborhood to at least downzone the density or go back to commercial only. <br />The City's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, and accurately so, people have <br />pointed out there have been court cases or one in particular that makes it difficult <br />to implement to its fullest. The Housing Element has a Program that says the <br />City will look at this and try and figure it out. Basically, implementation has been <br />hampered somewhat, but the City has been successful in negotiating with the <br />developers as they have come forward to get affordability in all of these projects. <br />While it has not necessarily always been to the exact level, but staff has worked <br />very hard to get it close. <br />The Growth Management Ordinance, which gets back to the issue of so much <br />development was approved at the end of the last planning period. This feels <br />more scary because people do not average it out; they just assume those big <br />numbers are going to keep going into the future, which is not the case. There is <br />nothing that needs to be done that the Council already has not done in terms of <br />moving forward with the new Growth Management Ordinance. <br />4. Infrastructure, some of the typical issues associated with growth, particularly <br />water. Up until the beginning of the drought, Zone 7 has water master plans and <br />tracks all of the cities it serves and what their General Plans are. It pays <br />attention to where the cities are going and work to try and provide the water <br />supply. As this drought has gotten worse, these master plans of three years ago <br />did not envision a three -year drought and all this rationing that is being done. <br />Right now, the City is right in the middle of what is becoming a crisis, and in <br />reality, there is a protocol in place. At a certain level of concern, the City Council <br />has the ability to put a moratorium on growth, and when it does, that will affect <br />these sites and other sites that have had zoning for many years. It is doubtful <br />that cities would build without the cooperation of all the communities served by <br />Zone 7 since it is all in one water source. One community would not put itself in <br />an economic disadvantage if there was no cooperation among the others. <br />Dialogue between the involved agencies will be starting about whether or not <br />additional steps are necessary beyond what people have done so far. In the <br />meantime, the City will just proceed with the understanding that that issue is <br />looming in the background. It will be dealt with if it gets to the point where it <br />worsens, or when the City Council determines it is at that point. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 13, 2014 Page 17 of 32 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.