CC MIN 02082022 - Laserfiche WebLink

MOTION: It was m/s by Arkin/Narum to include Site 23 in the inventory at the recommended density of 30 to 40 units per acre as recommended and as noted. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Narum, Testa, Mayor Brown Noes: None Absent: None In response to Mayor Brown, Director Clark confirmed based on the decisions made at this meeting, there is enough inventory and the City Council may elect to go back and take some off the list. Mayor Brown's inquired if the dais wanted to stop or power through the remainder of the agenda. The dais unanimously chose to continue. Director Clark inquired if Site 24: Sonoma Drive Area should remain in the preliminary inventory for further consideration and if there should be any changes to the recommended density range. She reported the site has multiple owners including some vacant parcels. She advised the development area is 6.51 acres with a recommended density of 15 to 25 units per acre with a capacity of 131 units. It was recommended by the Planning Commission to include the site in the inventory. Councilmember Balch moved to include Site 24 in the inventory at the recommended density of 15 to 25 units per acre. Councilmember Narum seconded the motion. MOTION: It was m/s by Balch/Narum to include Site 24 in the inventory at the recommended density of 15 to 25 units per acre as recommended and as noted. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Narum, Testa, Mayor Brown Noes: None Absent: None Director Clark inquired if Site 27: PUSD-Vineyard should remain in the preliminary inventory for further consideration and if there should be any changes to the recommended density range. She reported half of the space is being considered for development with the other half for open space. She advised the development area is 5 acres with a recommended density of 2 units per acre with a capacity of 10 units. PUSD requested the density be increased on the site. It was recommended by the Planning Commission to include the site in the inventory. Councilmember Testa noted that eliminating PUSD land without a replacement is irresponsible and moved to remove Site 27 from further consideration. In response to Councilmember Narum, Interim City Manager Dolan reported staff initiated retaining the open space because the Vineyard Specific Plan identifies a site for a community park that is on the old landfill and is very unlikely to ever occur. He advised the Specific Plan envisioned this site as a school and if it is going to be residential, there would be no park in the Vineyard Corridor. He noted staff's perspective was to give up part of it so there would be a park in the area. In response to Councilmember Narum, Director Clark advised the density was selected based on the surrounding area but noted it could be bumped up a little bit. She confirmed PUSD would like to increase the density on the portion being rezoned to yield more value from the development. Councilmember Arkin expressed concern that there will no longer be land for PUSD to build another school. She advised the City tried to help PUSD find suitable land in the northeast area of Pleasanton and could not find a parcel. She advised it is the City's charge to rezone the land. City Council Minutes Page 24 of 27 February 8,2022