My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC-2019-16
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
2010-2019
>
2019
>
PC-2019-16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/26/2019 12:59:57 PM
Creation date
9/26/2019 11:37:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
6/26/2019
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
DOCUMENT NO
PC-2019-16
NOTES
DSP_CERTIFY FEIR FOR DSP UPDATE
Text box
ID:
1
Creator:
Created:
9/26/2019 11:40 AM
Modified:
9/26/2019 11:40 AM
Text:
C1-4
Line
ID:
1
Creator:
Created:
9/26/2019 11:40 AM
Modified:
9/26/2019 11:40 AM
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
135
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
emphasis on an active street frontage, which is within the DSP and the current regulations. <br />As the Task Force process has proceeded, there's been discussion regarding whether to <br />have ground floor residential, which consequently was removed, but added back following <br />the February 27 Task Force meeting. Therefore, the number of units relative to the ultimate <br />build-out of downtown, in regard to the zoning and how the EIR was drafted, would account <br />for infill throughout the downtown over a 20-year period. The EIR would anticipate this infill <br />occurring in various places across the downtown, but not on every parcel. Given Chair <br />Allen's comments, staff will compare them to their assumptions to see how things align. <br />Commissioner Brown said he believes there was an envelope in terms of expected units but <br />they didn't specify whether it would occur on Main Street versus another street. He confirmed <br />that staff will refer back to the planning assumptions around the envelope that they created <br />the Draft EIR against to determine if it requires any modification based on those changes, <br />which is a fair request by Commissioner Allen. He referred to Barone's restaurant and the <br />Shell gas station and thinks the speaker's comment is valid, but at the same time, the <br />proposal as part of Map B was that the General Plan would be amended to show that it is <br />envisioned that it could transition to either mixed-use or residential in the future, but they are <br />not actually changing the zoning; therefore a zoning change would require the Planning <br />Commission to go through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. He concluded that <br />in terms of the EIR, when creating a PUD, it would include abating and changing a Shell gas <br />station, which would be addressed at that time. <br />Chair Allen asked staff to clarify Commissioner Brown's last comment; she said his <br />assumption was that Barone's restaurant and the gas station would not be changed until it <br />went through a PUD process. <br />Commissioner Brown clarified it was not the zoning but a discussion that the General Plan <br />would change to reflect that it is envisioned as part of the 20-year plan; it could transition at a <br />later date from commercial to mixed-use. <br />Mr. Beaudin said their goal is to make Map A changes with the adoption of the date of the <br />plan as it moves through the public process. Map B would be a subsequent effort, and, in <br />some cases, the General Plan needs to be modified. In most cases, it is the zoning and <br />Specific Plan designations that need to be addressed to align with their DSP efforts. <br />Therefore, the intent behind the Barone's restaurant and the Shell gas station conversation <br />was that they would create a residential overlay for those project sites, and it would create <br />the opportunity of a wider range of uses that would be considered at the time a formal <br />application moves forward. <br />Mr. Beaudin continued by stating that the General Plan, the zoning and the DSP would all <br />create the list of options and then the applicant would come forward with their PUD. There <br />would be project specific environmental review or at the very least, technical studies, that <br />would have to supplement the analysis at a program level for these sites and likely for others <br />in the downtown when it's decided to move forward. He gave another example that if it's <br />decided to move forward with redevelopment of the Civic Center site, there's anticipation that <br />the envelope, location of the driveways, number of trips, location of the parking structure, <br />hotel, etc. will require more analysis and details, especially around traffic. <br />Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 of 18 March 13, 2019 <br />nutes Page <br />7 of 18 March 13, 2019 m a <br />head start.Their two-year-old tested highly in both <br />English and Spanish when they began kindergarten which <br />was a huge benefit.Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 18 March 13, 2019
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.