My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN082708WS
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
CCMIN082708WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/22/2008 4:34:02 PM
Creation date
10/22/2008 4:02:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/27/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN082708WS
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
City Manager Fialho said there is the availability of having 1 million square feet of additional <br />entitlements to as high as 2 million, depending upon which scenario is chosen. <br />Councilmember McGovern said in talking with the school district, she questioned whether or not <br />they told the City they did not want all the same units put in the same place. City Manager <br />Fialho said when the three options were presented, the school district provided direction to the <br />City in a joint session that their preference was to have the City Council approve a General Plan <br />that had minimal residential development in the business park. She confirmed that they also <br />had a concern with the number of affordable units because they receive less impact fees for <br />affordable units. <br />Councilmember McGovern said her number one goal is completion of the General Plan, and <br />questioned whether the park area was premature when the City has not even done its east side <br />study yet. City Manager Fialho said the Council is put in the position of prioritizing and providing <br />direction to staff, but there is a request from the property owners and this is the sort of forum in <br />seeking direction. Councilmember McGovern said she has never spoken to the stakeholders, <br />does not know what it is like to live in Hacienda, she does not know what needs they have that <br />are not being met, and she questioned whether focus groups would be held with the <br />homeowner associations. City Manager Fialho said this was staff's concern and this was why <br />they developed the subcommittee process for consideration. <br />Councilmember McGovern expressed the need for playgrounds. <br />Councilmember Sullivan said the 1,271 units was the number staff used strictly to evaluate the <br />environmental impacts in the EIR and it is not a proposal for units; just to quantify the range of <br />impacts that could occur. Mr. Iserson agreed, and said staff started with the housing cap as the <br />limit and came up with different scenarios as to how the remaining units could be divided into <br />the different areas based upon what the developers were requesting, and it was not any <br />proposal on the table at this point. City Manager Fialho said this is important; staff really has not <br />zeroed in on what that number is for the park. The Council had a difficult time zeroing in on what <br />the end result would be, as well as the Planning Commission. Staff put a framework in place in <br />the General Plan that said, we will rely on a specific plan process to define what that ultimately <br />looks like. However, staff's reliance on the specific plan was not necessarily something that staff <br />endorsed. Most often, specific plans are in areas where cities are developing and making <br />something from nothing. Therefore, to some degree, staff relied on the business park for that <br />direction. Alternatively, the same outcome can be achieved through a PUD process without <br />making any judgment call tonight about ultimately what that density may or may not be. <br />Vice Mayor Thorne called fora 5-minute break at 8:30 p.m. <br />James Paxson said questions raised were extremely important, and he said what they want to <br />get at is to how they get the process to answer those questions. He said they have many <br />resources from those who have been involved with the park planning process from the <br />beginning, emphasized that part of why the City has not seen them sooner is that they have <br />followed the General Plan update process very closely and they have tried to listen to <br />discussions as they relate to land use and circulation, and they did analyses to look at the <br />underlying policies in the General Plan. He said those programs are entirely supportive of the <br />types of things they will be showing the Council and Planning Commission and want to bring <br />forward. This is why they do not feel a specific plan is the right or necessary vehicle to be used. <br />Also very different is the scope has changed considerably, particularly with regard to residential <br />plans. <br />CC/PC Joint Workshop Minutes 8 August 27, 2008 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.