My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
17
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2021
>
110221
>
17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/27/2021 2:21:42 PM
Creation date
10/27/2021 2:21:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
11/2/2021
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
created through an urban lot split. A local jurisdiction is permitted to establish <br />objective development, design and subdivision standards to the extent that they <br />do not conflict with the State law or minimum development that SB 9 requires to <br />be allowed for. Of note in this respect is the effect of Senate Bill 330, which <br />disallows local jurisdictions from adopting new zoning or development standards <br />that would have the effect of reducing the development intensity allowed by <br />current zoning. Therefore (for example), the City could not establish a limitation <br />on unit size, building envelopes or Floor Area Ratio for SB 9 units that would be <br />more restrictive than that those in place today in single-family zones. <br />Homeowners Associations/CC&Rs: SB 9 does not preclude HOAs from limiting <br />SB 9 projects through its Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). <br />Therefore, an HOA could choose to apply or develop restrictions on SB9 housing <br />developments and lot splits, if it chose to do so. As is the case for other areas <br />where an HOA's rules are more restrictive than those of the City, the HOA would <br />be responsible for enforcement of those restrictions. <br />As outlined above, while SB 9 does remove much of the design review and discretion <br />normally provided in conjunction with residential subdivisions and developments, it does <br />allow for the City to establish objective standards for these projects, provided that such <br />standards do not conflict with the State law. <br />To that end, the draft ordinance provided to the Planning Commission on October 27, <br />2021 takes advantage of the areas in which SB 9 provides some flexibility and allows <br />for more rigorous standards to be applied, such as in the design and location of required <br />parking, access and easements for public utilities. The draft includes a robust series of <br />objective design and development standards intended to ensure high quality, <br />aesthetically -pleasing projects that can fit as well as possible into the context of <br />Pleasanton's existing neighborhoods and minimize impacts to neighboring properties to <br />the extent possible. The October 27 Planning Commission Agenda Report is available <br />on the City's website at http://weblink.citvofpleasantonca.gov/weblink/0/doc/296115/ <br />Page1.aspx, and provides additional detail on the specific requirements of SB 9 and <br />outlines the proposed draft ordinance. <br />SB 10 (Wiener) This bill provides the authority for a local government to adopt, at its <br />discretion, an ordinance to zone any parcel for up to 10 units of residential density per <br />parcel, at a height specified in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in a transit -rich area <br />or an urban infill site. The bill specifies that an ordinance adopted under these <br />provisions, and any resolution to amend the jurisdiction's General Plan, ordinance, or <br />other local regulation adopted to be consistent with that ordinance, is not a project for <br />purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. The bill prohibits an ordinance <br />adopted under these provisions from superseding a local restriction enacted or <br />approved by a local initiative that designates publicly owned land as open -space land or <br />for park or recreational purposes. The City's primary reason for opposing this bill was <br />that it would allow a voter initiative to be overturned by a local government legislative <br />body. This bill is `opt in only', a City Council can decide to use SB 10 or not. <br />Page 7of8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.