My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
22
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2019
>
082019
>
22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2019 3:18:12 PM
Creation date
8/14/2019 2:23:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
8/20/2019
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Document Relationships
22 ATTACHMENT 1
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2019\082019
22 ATTACHMENT 2
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2019\082019
22 ATTACHMENT 3
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2019\082019
22 ATTACHMENT 4
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2019\082019
22 ATTACHMENT 5
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2019\082019
22 ATTACHMENT 6
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2019\082019
22 ATTACHMENT 7
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2019\082019
22 ATTACHMENT 8
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2019\082019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
- Adoption of Municipal Code Amendments: The draft specific plan includes <br /> several policies and programs that necessitate updates to various existing <br /> sections of Pleasanton Municipal Code Title 18: Zoning. These amendments are <br /> generally either to add zoning standards where they do not exist today (e.g., <br /> allowable land uses and development standards for the newly-created MU-T and <br /> MU-D districts), or to update sections of the PMC that would be inconsistent with <br /> policies of the DSP once it is adopted. A complete draft of the recommended <br /> amendments to the Pleasanton Municipal Code is included as part of Exhibit A to <br /> Attachment 4. A summary of the proposed amendments, each of which is <br /> consistent with the Draft DSP, is provided beginning on page 10 of the Planning <br /> Commission agenda report (Attachment 5). <br /> - Adoption of General Plan Amendments: Staff has reviewed the Pleasanton <br /> General Plan, to determine any necessary revisions to ensure consistency <br /> between the General Plan and draft specific plan as updated. The principal <br /> amendment needed is to the General Plan Land Use Map, shown on DSP "Map <br /> A," as discussed above. Staff has prepared a map to indicate proposed General <br /> Plan land use map changes within the downtown area. Changes to the <br /> boundaries of the Downtown Specific Plan area would also be reflected in <br /> various maps and diagrams throughout the General Plan. These map changes <br /> and other minor text changes are reflected in Exhibit A to Attachment 2. <br /> - Adoption of Downtown Design Guidelines Amendments: Staff reviewed and <br /> determined a few places in which amendments to the Downtown Design <br /> Guidelines would be needed to maintain consistency with the updated Downtown <br /> Specific Plan. These include updating the map of downtown to be consistent with <br /> the proposed draft specific plan boundary, and text updates, deferring to the <br /> Downtown Specific Plan regarding height and building stories. Please see Exhibit <br /> C to Attachment 2 for the draft amendments to the Downtown Design Guidelines. <br /> - Adoption of Hospitality Guidelines Amendment: Staff proposes to amend the map <br /> of the Downtown Specific Plan area in the Downtown Hospitality Guidelines to <br /> reflect the revised boundary of the plan area. This straightforward map change is <br /> Exhibit D to Attachment 2. <br /> KEY POLICY TOPICS: SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> As mentioned earlier in this report, the Task Force, Planning Commission and City <br /> Council have, in the months leading up to this Council meeting, provided input and <br /> recommendations a series of five key policy items that had arisen from the Draft DSP <br /> review process. Table 1, below, provides a comparison between the February 26 Task <br /> Force recommendation, the April/May City Council direction, and the June 26 Planning <br /> Commission recommendation regarding three of the five key topics: ground floor <br /> residential uses, property owner-initiated requests, and development standards. <br /> The other two topics, massage establishment regulations and the active ground floor <br /> overlay are not included in this table since the City Council direction was the same as <br /> Page 8 of 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.