My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
12
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2017
>
030717
>
12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/1/2017 3:00:33 PM
Creation date
3/1/2017 9:51:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
3/7/2017
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
12
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
179
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
Commissioner Olson stated that at the workshop, he asked BRE why they did not come <br /> in and request 50 units per acre, and they said it was not feasible. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor noted that BRE only represents one or two properties and not <br /> the third property. <br /> Chair Narum commented that the representative from Roche, the owner of Parcel 3, is <br /> also present. She added that she is specifically interested in Parcel 2. She suggested <br /> re-opening the public hearing and asking Mr. Wayland to comment. <br /> Commissioners O'Connor and Olson agreed with Commissioner Pearce. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor continued that the Commission could set the minimum of what <br /> the City needs, and when a developer comes in and asks for something that is certainly <br /> beyond what the Commission thinks, the Commission can then have that discussion. <br /> Chair Narum inquired what the Commission would do if an application for 50 units per <br /> acre came in and it is not what the Commission wants. <br /> Commissioner Blank noted that there are school impacts, traffic impacts, and safety <br /> impacts. <br /> Mr. Dolan explained that if the Commission is not comfortable with 55 units on Parcel 2, <br /> it should say so now, because if someone comes in with 50 units per acre and meets <br /> the guidelines, that would not be the time to state the Commission is uncomfortable with <br /> 50 acres on Parcel 2. He noted that the application will have clearance on traffic and on <br /> schools. He added that in the CEQA analysis, the City we must take the most <br /> conservative; therefore, the City must put 55 units across even if the Commission <br /> knows what BRE has stated. He indicated that if BRE goes away and someone comes <br /> in with 55 units, this would be allowed by the guidelines, and they can deal with the <br /> design issues, but the Commission could not say then that it is not comfortable with the <br /> number of units. He commented that Mr. Wayland may state that BRE intends to do <br /> something with 30-35 units but would still like to maintain the flexibility. <br /> THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE-OPENED. <br /> Mr. Wayland concurred and stated that he thinks it is always better to be clear about <br /> intentions from the outset. He indicated that developers always look at certainty; hence, <br /> if the Commission thinks 55 units to the acre is too dense, it is good to state that <br /> upfront. He noted that currently, 55 units to the acre is not feasible, and this is why BRE <br /> is coming in with less density. He added that if BRE did not come in now and returns in <br /> five years, there may have the opportunity to build at a higher density, and these <br /> conversations would all be forgotten. <br /> Commissioner Blank asked Mr. Wayland if he would be comfortable with a limitation <br /> that would restrict density to no more than 35 units per acre on all three parcels. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 26, 2011 Page 23 of 40 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.