PC 092816 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Nagler: May I just clarify one quick thing, it may not change your view on it, but just to be clear, the Community Center is a building. It's not a set of services. What we have heard a lot of is that the event space that exists in Pleasanton is mostly within hotels and it's quite expensive, and that the demand on the single Community Room we really do have which is in the Library causes it to be pale in comparison to the community's desire for a place to congregate that is affordable. So the Community Center, as it's envisioned, houses some City offices as Brian pointed out, specifically Parks and Rec, but more importantly, they are smaller classroom spaces and then a larger flexible space so that you could have larger events both municipal or private. But, if they are private events, it's strictly to provide the space. Catering, organizing, decorating is totally up to the user. It has nothing to do with the City, just to be clear about it. Commissioner Allen: Thank you. Commissioner O'Connor: So one piece that I didn't touch on because I thought we were just talking about the move to the center, but I too like Nancy, I don't want to see this site, if we vacate this site —I don't want to see it turned into all residential because that happens to be the highest ticket item for real estate today. I really want it to be an extension of downtown retail. Dolan: And I think that's consistent with some of the comments we heard. We really only had one evening where we talked about that and that's when we presented the market analysis. But our purpose there was not to get them engaged on what should go here but to give them a range of uses that we could tell them would work. It will be no surprise to anybody that the one that's going to give you the most return is housing. And I'd say we can build housing in the medians on Hopyard and sell it. So really it was an explanation of all the other uses that we need to know. Yes you could do some retail and you could do some office and you know, maybe there's some second floor residential that could supplement that. I want to address some of the uses that have been thrown out there. There's quite a bit in that study about a theater. It basically says no theater is going to work here. You'd use up all the land, you'd have to give them free parking. Unless the City was really doing it as a loss meter to get more people downtown that's the only way it would work. But it also told us what could be successful and there's a list that extends beyond housing that gets more successful if you can include a little bit of housing. That's all we wanted to do with that group —get them comfortable enough to say, look, it's something that we are comfortable with the envelope on that could happen here and be supported by the market. Therefore, we feel okay in talking about the alternative location. Gerry and Adam get to deal with exactly what that mix is with their group. Chair Ritter: That's my primary issue. I wouldn't want this thing to go to a vote until we've determined what we're going to do with the existing 13 acres. We saw together how hard it was to rezone one or two houses downtown .... I mean, if we have to pay $22 million I think they said the 13 acres' value of this site would be if we sold it. That would include mixed use with residential also. I think that's what I heard. If you take the residential use out of it the sale of the lot could be less. So I do support moving across the street. I like the extension of downtown, but I think the economic vitality is the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 28, 2016 Page 9 of 32