My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN050592
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN050592
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:03 AM
Creation date
10/28/1999 11:45:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
5 <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that there was a proposed Specific Plan in <br /> the downtown area including the residential area. Staff had <br /> completed the Specific Plan for the commercial area but no= for <br /> residential area. There were no General Plan changes made. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr suggested that when the General Plan is reviewed, it <br /> would be an appropriate time to revisit =he issues raised by Ms. <br /> Bachelor. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked if there was any consideration in giving <br /> preference to City residents since this project would produce three <br /> units~hat would potentially be in competition with other projects. <br /> He asked if it would be likely that residents in the other senior <br /> housing would want these new units over where they reside at this <br /> time. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that it would be possible to create a <br /> condition listing preference to City residents. He stated that he <br /> doubted that the residents in Ridgeview would pay a lower rent by <br /> moving to this project. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if it would be practical for Council to add a <br /> sentence to Condition 7 indicating that it wanted priority to be <br /> given =o Pleasan=on residents as a whole. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift answered that it was satisfactory to staff to do so. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler explained=hat he would have preferred the 22-unit <br />project because it would do a better job in aiding the program for <br />affordable housing. He did recognize the improvement in the <br />appearance of the project by eliminating the two end units. He <br />supported the project and stated that it was well designed and <br />would help the need for affordable housing. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver did not support this project. He felt that there <br />was not enough "very low" units. He believed that the High Density <br />zoning should be yielding more in the way of affordable housing <br />than just three units out of a 20-unit project. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner agreed with to Mr. Tarver's co~ents. She stated <br />that one of the reasons for looking at this project was for the <br />affordabilty. She believed that the three units that are "very <br />low" were the only units that were affordable. She was not happy <br />with the parking proposed. She felt that it was important to have <br />senior housing downtown but was not in favor of this application. <br /> <br />515192 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.