Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Sullivan asked for clarification of the conflicting zoning and General Plan designation <br />on the Valley Trails site. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson did not know why this had occurred, but it has been there for a long time. <br />Generally land is zoned to be consistent with the General Plan. There are a handful of <br />properties throughout the city that are not consistent. He believed the land was zoned <br />residential and when the church wanted to build there, the General Plan was amended to allow <br />it, but the zoning was not changed. It will be a priority of staff once the new General Plan is <br />adopted, to make certain there is consistency. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan asked if there would be an economic or fiscal analysis of whatever level of <br />development is determined appropriate by the General Plan Update. Once land use, number of <br />units and locations are determined, he understood there would be a fiscal analysis that talks <br />about revenues and how the city will keep on going. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson said that was correct. That is why staff wants a preferred land use option, so <br />it can proceed to develop a scenario for testing, not only traffic, but also for fiscal analysis. That <br />is done on a project basis as well. <br /> <br />Jerry Thorne referred to the 113 units reserved for the Busch property and asked if they <br />have to be used somewhere else if not used on the Busch property? <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson said those units would go into a reserve if not used on the Busch property. <br /> <br />Mr. Thorne indicated the numbers being reviewed at this meeting do not include what <br />was set forth in the 1996 General Plan, including the Lemoine, Merritt and other properties not <br />listed in the chart. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson said that was correct. Those three properties (Lemoine, Lester and Merritt) <br />do have residential designation and are accounted for within the existing General Plan and <br />would not lose that. The properties listed in the staff report are those that can be redesignated <br />and would take 1,650-80 units that would be available between the current build out and the <br />housing cap. With respect to the Lemoine property, the family would have to present a PUD <br />and go through the normal process. <br /> <br />Mr. Thorne referred to a comment about an ACE station on the Kiewit property and <br />asked if staff had looked at that? <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson said it had not. Staff was waiting to see how this process plays out and <br />since there is a desire to do an east side specific plan and if there is a proposal to put the ACE <br />station there, it would be reviewed at that time. <br /> <br />Cindy McGovern asked how many units had been approved and not yet built in the city? <br />She also asked if the fairgrounds was counted as public and institutional property in <br />Pleasanton? <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson said the fairgrounds is in the city limits and is public and institutional. The <br />number of units approved and not built is 559 as of January 2005. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern asked if Lemoine was approved for 26 units, with 13 that could still be <br /> <br />built? <br /> <br />Joint Workshop <br />City CounciVPlanning Commission <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br />04/25/06 <br />