My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN 09212021
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2020 - PRESENT
>
2021
>
CCMIN 09212021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/18/2021 11:21:28 AM
Creation date
11/18/2021 11:19:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/21/2021
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
DOCUMENT NAME
CCMIN 09212021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
Councilmember Balch advised 6(a) should be altered in light of Councilmember Narum's discussion <br />about the height of existing buildings. <br />In response to Councilmember Balch, Director Clark advised it does not matter if it reads as "four stories" <br />or "one story higher" and it is important to be realistic relative to the profile of development. More sites <br />would be scored negative with the four-story language because the City has more buildings below three <br />stories. <br />Mayor Brown stated the Downtown Specific Plan states no building can be 15 feet taller than its neighbor. <br />She noted this could be less of a concern in other areas of the City. Director Clark explained this would <br />only apply to high-density housing sites. <br />In response to Councilmember Balch, Director Clark confirmed if they leave 6(a) as is it would help <br />identify additional sites. <br />Councilmember Narum stated they have to be realistic about high-density buildings having at least some <br />component of a fourth story. Councilmember Balch agreed it is important to be realistic about what is <br />already built so there is not a difference in the height of what will be built. <br />All Councilmembers and Mayor Brown approved Categories 6 and 7 as presented by staff. <br />Councilmember Balch moved to adopt the sites selection criteria as altered by the Council. <br />Councilmember Narum seconded the motion. <br />MOTION: It was m/s by Balch/Narum to adopt the sites selection criteria with amendments of striking <br />2(c), adjusting 2(g) to one mile, adding a criterion to Category 4 for airport protection areas, and <br />making 4(e) four individual criteria instead of a single four -pronged criterion. The Motion passed by <br />the following vote: <br />Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Narum, Testa, Mayor Brown <br />Noes: None <br />Absent: None <br />MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL <br />Councilmember Testa requested City Council explore an ordinance to require voter approval for any <br />Senate Bill (SB) 10 provisions. She requested staff investigate and provide a report to identify any <br />vulnerabilities and risks. She would like to receive feedback on an ordinance for a future initiative. <br />City Manager Fialho stated staff was planning a legislative update after September 30th focused on SB <br />8, SB 9, and SB 10, but it will include broader discussion. <br />COUNCIL REPORTS <br />Mayor Brown reported speaking with California State Attorney General Rob Bonta regarding federal and <br />state legislative updates. She reported attendance at the Alameda County Mayors Conference, Joint <br />Pleasanton Unified School District (PUSD), two Alameda County Transportation Commission meetings, <br />and a joint meeting with Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA). <br />Councilmember Testa reported attendance at the League of California Cities Housing, Community, and <br />Economic Development meeting and the Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency <br />(LAVMWA) meeting. <br />City Council Minutes Page 13 of 14 September 21, 2021 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.