My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01 8-27-2008
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
100708
>
01 8-27-2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/29/2008 5:01:06 PM
Creation date
9/29/2008 4:32:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
10/7/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
01 8-27-2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
by the developer. Mr. Iserson said the City has done specific plans in a variety of ways, but <br />more recently and preferably, it reaches out to have representatives from all parties included in <br />the process. <br />Mr. Dolan presented the General Plan issues, said both BRE and W.P. Kerry proposals require <br />General Plan Amendment. The mixed use designation refers to mixed uses on a single site, and <br />therefore, this definition could either be maintained or amended. CarrAmerica would not need a <br />General Plan Amendment under either the existing or new plan. They believe there is reason to <br />take CarrAmerica out of the park-wide process and there would have to be traffic analysis done. <br />He discussed the market analysis done by CarrAmerica and said mixed use, residential and <br />housing were all considered to be an advantage to the park, an amenity which could increase <br />the attraction of the park and generate greater income. However developers do not believe <br />mixed use is feasible with the present housing allocation within the park. He said the allocation <br />from the preferred plan may need to be considered as well as increasing the allocation to <br />Hacienda while being mindful of the housing cap. There are approximately 500 units in reserve <br />that have no geographic assignment. Staff believes regardless, an updated market study will <br />need to be done, as well as a traffic analysis. <br />Mr. Dolan said there are also issues relating to the housing element, zoning, and approving high <br />density housing to meet policy 9 and 41, noting allocating more high density units to Hacienda <br />would provide more opportunity for inclusionary housing units to reach affordable housing goals. <br />He said there is an issue raised by the current applications in that it is the City's policy to <br />disperse low income units throughout projects in the community. However, there is a proposal to <br />consider a concentration of units in one portion of the site. While this is the easiest way to get <br />the most number of affordable units, the issue is one of policy. The housing element <br />encourages mixed use, modification of development standards to achieve affordable housing, a <br />new development concept around transit, reduced parking requirements to use transit, and <br />allowance for open space. <br />Mr. Dolan said there are also funding opportunities. The City received its designation from <br />ABAG as a primary development area and cities with such designation are eligible for planning <br />and capital grants. He said the City received a planning grant in association with the BART <br />station project which could result in capital grants to fund capital projects, such as public <br />amenities and trail improvements. He reviewed the 9 questions outlined in the staff report: <br />Chair Blank referred to slides 2, 8 and 51, stating that it was mentioned that in October 2005, <br />the Council gave direction to do a specific plan, then in December 2007 James Paxton indicated <br />there might be some interest in doing a PUD modification. He questioned if work stopped on <br />the specific plan, as three years had gone by. Mr. Dolan said the Hacienda representatives <br />regrouped and the stakeholders met and discussed how they wanted to move forward, as <br />earlier on they thought they would have more support for spark-wide planning effort. More <br />recently, there was interest on the part of the three property owners for the three applications <br />also that came forward, and there was not much progress made in the interim with the specific <br />plan. <br />Chair Blank referred to the comment on the walking map and said some of the maps he has <br />seen on transit-oriented development do not incorporate a circle, but they actually measure <br />streets. He noted that the building on the south side will be more than a half mile to walk, <br />questioned if there was a way to tell how much existing commercial could be converted versus <br />how much new infill will be created. He referred to slide 38, stating it was presented as a <br />transit-oriented development but he felt more of the examples looked more like transit adjacent <br />CC/PC Joint Workshop Minutes 3 August 27, 2008 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.