My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
14
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2019
>
050719
>
14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/30/2019 4:21:03 PM
Creation date
4/30/2019 4:20:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
5/7/2019
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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).
View images
View plain text
Property Owner-Initiated Requests <br /> In addition, during the course of the DSP update, two separate property-owners (i.e., <br /> 4212 First Street and 475/493 St. John Street), expressed interest in residential <br /> development on their lots. The properties currently have commercial land use <br /> designations. Although originally included in the land use discrepancies discussion, it <br /> was ultimately concluded that these property owner-requested zoning changes are <br /> categorically different and should be discussed and treated separately from the broader <br /> set of "land use discrepancies." <br /> The Task Force's initial direction on the two property owner-initiated requests was that <br /> any re-designation/rezoning of these properties should be considered following, and <br /> outside of, any land use changes made as part of the DSP update. <br /> At the February 26 meeting, staff recognized the Task Force's prior direction, while <br /> suggesting an alternative approach that would reflect the interest and potential for <br /> residential uses at 4212 First Street and 475/493 St. John Street, by placing a <br /> residential "overlay" or annotation on the DSP land use map. The overlay would clearly <br /> allow for consideration of either standalone residential uses, commercial uses, or a <br /> combination of both. <br /> Staff suggested if residential or any type of mixed use with residential were to be <br /> proposed on these properties, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) be required, so the <br /> legislative change would have to be considered by both the Planning Commission and <br /> City Council. <br /> The rationale behind creating this option was two-fold: although the approach allows the <br /> City to consider the possibility of residential uses in the future, the suggested overlay <br /> would not diminish the City's ability review a future project proposal and negotiate with <br /> the property owners though the entitlement process; and both property owners would <br /> like to move forward at this time and could submit separate applications which may <br /> further complicate the DSP update process or result in changes shortly after the <br /> updated DSP is adopted. <br /> Task Force Discussion and Recommendation <br /> By an 8-1 vote, the Task Force supported staff's suggested approach. There was some <br /> concern about allowing an overlay on these two properties but not opening up the <br /> option to other property owners. <br /> Staff Recommendation/City Council Direction <br /> Staff recommends following the Task Force's direction, to assign or annotate the <br /> Specific Plan Land Use map to indicate that residential, in addition to commercial uses, <br /> may be considered for these two sites. Staff further recommends inclusion of policy <br /> language in the DSP that clearly specifies such consideration would be discretionary <br /> and would necessitate a legislative review and approval process, through a PUD <br /> application, and would be subject to site-specific California Environmental Quality Act <br /> review and analysis. <br /> Page 9 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.