My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN112905
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
CCMIN112905
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:43 AM
Creation date
1/27/2006 4:13:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/29/2005
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN112905
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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 />she could count those units for the housing cap. Beyond that, she believed this was <br />strictly a commercial development and should not be treated any differently than similar <br />facilities. Regarding growth management, she agreed with the staff recommendation <br />and felt that it was outdated and needs to be revisited. She felt the same as everyone <br />else about the jobs/housing balance that it was unattainable and the city should stop <br />chasing that pipedream. She felt it was more important to bring affordability to housing <br />in Pleasanton and to new people who will be moving to the city. She did not want to <br />legislate but rather to encourage sound environmental policies to get people living and <br />working in the community. Traffic is the biggest hot topic in Pleasanton. The best way <br />to get people off the freeway system is to provide an opportunity to live and work in the <br />same community. She really liked the idea of reserving a certain number of units for the <br />future. We have no idea what the community will be like in fifty or a hundred years. <br />Regarding housing size, she felt the Planning Commissioners do a lot to encourage <br />affordable by design and transit-oriented development. <br /> <br />She summarized that there seems to be a consensus to defer discussion of the <br />definition of gross developable acreage at this time. She believed that would be voted <br />on at a special meeting along with the decision on how to count the assisted living units. <br />She believed there was consensus to approve the staff recommendations regarding <br />growth management. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan said that was correct so long as the 350-unit cap per year is <br />maintained until a decision is made on something else. <br /> <br />Mr. Fialho suggested further discussion be done in the Council meeting format. <br /> <br />Mr. Arkin indicated Council couldn't rely on the Planning Commission alone to <br />deal with house size. Council needs to make a policy in the General Plan that gives the <br />Commission the leverage and ability to reduce the size of homes. <br /> <br />5. ADJOURNMENT <br /> <br />There being no further discussion, the joint workshop was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. <br /> <br />~:I~"~~ <br /> <br />D wn G. Abra~on <br />City Clerk <br /> <br />Joint Workshop <br />City Council/Planning Commission <br /> <br />19 <br /> <br />11/29/05 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.