My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 121014
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
PC 121014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:24:18 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 4:21:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
12/10/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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 PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br />Karen Ellgas stated that she basically would like to reconfirm staffs recommendation <br />regarding the CM Capital 2 site on behalf of the Parkside residents. She noted that the <br />neighborhood has done a lot of campaigning and work to get to this point and asked <br />that the Commission approve the recommendation. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br />Commissioner Allen referred to Program 30.2 on page 27 of the Draft Housing Element <br />and noted that there is an item added that states "... incorporating all lower- income <br />regional housing need allocation requirements into the growth management <br />allocation...." She asked staff if this is something that the City already does. <br />Ms. Wallis replied that currently, all housing units are currently counted equally within <br />the growth management allocation, and the intent of this option is to break down the <br />235 units into individual income categories, each treated separately within the growth <br />management allocation. She added that this is different from the exemption option <br />which would exempt all lower- income units from the growth management allocation. <br />Commissioner Allen asked if this is essentially what the City does today when it creates <br />its growth management allocation numbers. <br />Ms. Wallis said no, specifically because it is not worded that way. <br />Commissioner Ritter commented that he liked all three recommendations and that the <br />Supplemental EIR was good to add to the previously prepared report. He commended <br />everybody who put so much time into this document, as well as the public feedback, <br />which was great. He thanked Ms. Ellgas for speaking on the CM Capital 2 site, noting <br />that it was great to see how that worked out. He noted that the changes made by the <br />City Council made a lot of sense. <br />Commissioner Allen echoed Commissioner Ritter and thanked staff for all their hard <br />work, the public, Ms. Ellgas and her team for coming out and working in a win /win way <br />to create a really good plan. She noted that the bottom line is that HCD approved the <br />document and that she knows staff worked really closely with HCD regarding its issues <br />and concerns. She indicated that the Housing Element is a testament to having a <br />well- thought through plan that serves the needs of the community. <br />Chair O'Connor stated that the Housing Element is one of the longer triumph -type <br />things the City does every so many years. He noted that there are a lot of new things, a <br />lot of public comment, and a lot of work that went into this. He noted that, unfortunately, <br />he does not have the long, long list of names, because there are many, many people to <br />thank who put the effort into this, including some on staff who are no longer here. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 10, 2014 Page 4 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.