My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 10/29/81
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1981
>
PC 10/29/81
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:16:05 PM
Creation date
4/30/2007 8:54:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/29/1981
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 10/29/81
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
Commissioner Lindsey said we might have an opportunity to combine <br />both with a portion of the property being set aside for an <br />assessment district in the middle of it. Chairperson Getty said <br />you might need more commercial in the downtown area to support <br />an assessment district because you might not have enough property <br />owners willing to support an assessment district in an area other <br />than where they are located. <br />Larry Lew stated that the matter being discussed was commercial vs. <br />residential for the area and the study primarily addresses this issue. <br />Mr. Harris said that if the main effort is to provide more parking <br />the General Plan and zoning does not have to be changed to commercial <br />or office. He said that in a parking assessment situation one would <br />have to determine who would benefit and clearly delineate who will <br />benefit in the area and it might be difficult to have an assessment <br />district at the periphery of the area. He said people might not <br />want to contribute and there would probably have to be some kind of <br />City support if set up on the west side of Peters -- you would be <br />talking about City parking lots and it could be zoned P (Public <br />and Institutional). <br />Commissioner Lindsey felt that he was not sure the west side of <br />Peters would be aesthetically pleasing as a parking lot. <br />Mr. Warnick stated that the cost of a parking space is about $5,000 <br />per space. <br />Chairperson Getty said at the present time there is no parking for <br />people who use the rapid transit system. She said that Peters Street <br />is a natural. <br />Mr. Harris then asked the Planning Commission to define what we <br />are trying to achieve -- parking or additional commercial land. <br />Chairperson Getty said she would like to do both. <br />Mr. Harris stated that if Peters was rezoned to commercial/offices <br />that would probably not help parking and that the only way addi- <br />tional parking would be required would be if a district was set up. <br />Commissioner Lindsey then asked if at the time of application for <br />commercial development a requirement for assessment district could <br />be required. Mr. Harris said that we could condition development <br />either not to protest or to participate in a district. <br />Mr. Swift said that the Scotto's property on St. John cost $600,000 <br />for 120 parking spaces on the two lots. <br />Mr. Harris said it might be better, rather than to consolidate parking, <br />to scatter it throughout downtown. <br />-3- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.