PC 042716 - Laserfiche WebLink

deal was that the church would be an important part of that property and part of the deal for the development. I'm thinking of this in a similar way. This is background for my question and what we learned there was that over time in this case, the church decided that they were going to sell the property and find a less expensive property and profit. They were going to sell the property that they got semi - donated to them at a lower cost and ended up making money and buying another property and re- investing in their church. So I'm thinking about this because as Planning Commissioners, we're really supposed to look at zoning. As Chair Ritter always reminds us, look at zoning and not the occupant of the zoning. So in looking at the zoning we're creating; high density, my question is what happens if whoever the occupant is, and in this case the occupant we're talking about. What happens if for some business reason things change and they decide that they want to sell this property that has been donated to them and move to a different place or consolidate more in Livermore? Hagen: That's still part of the negotiations and terms of what the nature of the affordable housing agreement is. As we discussed, the developer of the Irby project will be donating the land to the City and then the question is, is the City going to —much what we did with Kottinger Gardens, perhaps there is a long -term ground lease or some other structure for the ownership of the 1.34 acres. That would still be an issue for negotiation. Commissioner Allen: So this is new to me. The land is donated to the City and not to the non - profit? Is that what I heard you say? Hagen: That could potentially be one option. There could be another option where it was a direct donation, so there are lots of different potential aspects for how the ownership could work. Commissioner O'Connor: So we haven't decided on that yet? Hagen: That hasn't been decided yet. That's correct. Chair Ritter: It's a workshop. Thank you, great question. I like the idea of leaving this question for last also and maybe we'll go to discussion points. We have 8 topics. If we do 10 minutes a topic that's about 80 minutes. So, what I'm asking is that if we all agree on something, you don't have to repeat it. Just agree and we'll go down the line. We'll just kind of take turns going down the road. Would you mind, maybe less than a minute, help discuss this site plan? Hagen: So the first discussion point we're going to talk about is that basically overall: Is the overall site plan and street/pedestrian design layout acceptable? We are looking for comments on the visibility, the connections between the green spaces, sidewalks on the site, the overall parking design and layout. Is this something you feel acceptable such as are there enough sidewalks, enough pedestrian access? When you drive by Stanley, can you see directly into the property? So we are looking for comments from you on that and whether you feel the current design is appropriate. Commissioner Allen: So high level, I agree with everything that staff is putting here under their recommendations and changes under amenities, page 12 of 17. So just specifically, I agree that ideally there should be some kind of program, active space or enclosed active space for children. Chair Ritter: Wait a minute — that's amenities. We're number 2, site plan PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 27, 2016 Page 24 of 43