My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN092705
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
CCMIN092705
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:42 AM
Creation date
9/23/2005 9:37:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/27/2005
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN092705
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
<br />noted the Vineyard Corridor and Happy Valley Specific Plans are also new, however a portion <br />of the Happy Valley Specific Plan would come forward for review as part of the <br />Spotorno/Greenbriar application. <br /> Ms. McGovern asked if the density in the downtown area would be part of the review? <br />She referred to a presentation by Charles I-luff and Mike O'Callaghan to Council about zoning <br />changes and secondary units in the downtown area. <br /> Mr. Iserson said it was not included because of the recent adoption of the Downtown <br />Specific Plan. <br /> She asked if there were overall land use goals for the vacant property in the city? She <br />wondered if there were certain public and institutional or open space properties that the city <br />wanted to maintain? <br /> Mr. Iserson said those things are to be reviewed. He did not think there had been <br />identified percentages for each, but that is important to the land use discussion to determine if <br />there is enough land for each category. <br /> Ms. McGovern wanted that perspective to be included in the build out plan. She then <br />asked if the economic perspective is considered when reviewing land use changes? <br /> Mr. Iserson said that is part of the consideration and the consultant team includes a <br />member of Bay Area Economics, which is working on an economic and fiscal plan for the city. <br />They are working with the Economic Vitality Committee and staff to assess what would be best <br />for the city in the future in terms of business interests and other economic and fiscal analyses. <br /> Ms. McGovern then referred to the map and noted some properties are not within the <br />city limits. She asked if staff had discussed annexation with these landowners? <br /> Mr. Iserson said yes. He noted the General Plan is based on the city's planning area, <br />which includes areas beyond the city limits, so that if those areas are ever annexed, the city <br />has some input to the County with regard to what it might approve to be built in that location. <br />For planning purposes, the General Plan has always gone beyond the city boundaries. <br /> Ms. Iserson referred to the memo, which discussed possible large issues for Planning <br />Commission contemplation. She asked if there would be a review of definitions and policies <br />surrounding density ranges, mid-point ranges and gross developable acreage? <br /> Mr. Iserson said that was possible if desired. <br /> Ms. McGovern then indicated her interest in inclusionary housing and wanted to make <br />certain that was part of land use. <br /> Mr. Iserson said that was more closely related to the Housing Element. <br />Joint Workshop <br />City Council/Planning Commission 5 09/27/05 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.