CCMIN060512 - Laserfiche WebLink

that there are not many vacant lots but also conceded that there is always the potential for redevelopment, in which case the Council would have to deny the application or modify the development agreement. Mayor Hosterman said she could support all suggestions with exception of the cap, as she preferred to allow future Commissions and Councils to determine what is appropriate for the property at that point in time. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said that looking at total capacity is important, so long as the City retains the ability to make exceptions. She felt that if the City had been flexible to begin with, it might not have found itself in court. Councilmember Sullivan requested clarification on "larger development," as referred to on page 25. Mr. Williams explained that under open space regulations, development size is based on the number of units. This way, it is assured that "larger developments" will have sufficient open space to provide the types of amenities described under that section. Councilmember Sullivan asked and Mr. Williams confirmed that it is discretionary in terms of actually requiring these amenities; however, Councilmember Sullivan felt it should be more compulsory. Councilmember Sullivan said he liked the concept of situating parking structures up against the freeway, which should provide some buffer to other uses on the site. He concurred with staff that this would be the appropriate location, if such a place exists, for this kind of development in Pleasanton. However, he felt that much more public input was needed and asked that staff increase advertizing and outreach before the item returns before the Council. He also asked that the BART site be required to provide garbage enclosures and source separated containers. Councilmember Thorne said his comfort level had increased since learning about the amount of flexibility built into the guidelines. Any proposal that comes forward needs to make economic sense and flexibility is a significant factor in ensuring these guidelines can stand the test of time. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said her primary concern is with flexibility with respects to Regional Housing Needs Allocation and the City's ability to be proactive in planning through the next several cycles. She agreed with need for community education in terms of why the guidelines are prepared in this fashion and felt that clarification on building height relative to number of stories would be critical to public understanding. She also agreed that some of the numbers put forward seem provocative but suggested that they view the cafeteria of options as an "or rather than "and" situation. Councilmember McGovern maintained her position regarding her earlier comments. She referred to page 8, which discusses the bedroom mix of affordable units, and asked why studios are not included. She requested clarification on the term "porch," as referred to on page 13, and stressed that actual size is important when considering livability standards. She asked that internal circulation standards be safe for cyclists of all ages and said she did not consider "paseos" to be open space. On page 29, she asked that bay friendly landscaping and water conserving irrigation methods be required, rather than encouraged. She also expressed concern that the density listed under different development styles could be construed as a guaranteed density. Mr. Dolan said the densities listed are the typical yield for a specific type of development. Internally, the documents do state a maximum net yield because some sites might take advantage of a very intense development in order to also include low-density development along certain sensitive frontages. He acknowledged that this may be confusing, although it may be justified in order to retain flexibility, and recommended that the focus be on maximum densities averaged over the entire site. City Council Minutes Page 10 of 11 June 5, 2012