My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN070196
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
CCMIN070196
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:45 AM
Creation date
5/13/1999 10:28:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/1/1996
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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
The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers - Dennis, Michelotti, Mohr, Pico, and Mayor Tarver <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />MediUm ~md High Density_ Residential Range <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarvet referred to discussions of the mid-range concept and how the average was <br />supposed to be four, but over the last few years it seemed to end up at the high end of eight. <br />Part of this process was to include something in the General Plan that says average development <br />should be at the mid-range rather than always at the high end. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rasmussen indicated that is in the current policy. Staff has researched this and <br />found that since 1986 approvals have been at slightly below the mid-range. There is a crucial <br />provision in the Land Use Element that deals with General Plan buildout that states the City is <br />to monitor and zone future development so that we do meet the mid-point. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr supported retaining the existing language because that is the basis on which <br />Pleasanton has been built and the survey shows that 99 % of the citizens think the way Pleasanton <br />is built is desirable and they like it. To complete the City on what would be large lot <br />development is contrary to the kind of community we now have. The mid-point has been <br />working well. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Mohr, seconded by Ms. Michdotti, to retain the existing <br />language as recommended by the Planning Commission: "Medium Density Residential - <br />between two and eight dwelling units per gross developable acre. High Density Residential <br />- greater than eight dwelling units per gross developable acre." <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis agreed because the Council has the means to accomplish what was intended <br />through other less controversial options. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarvet supported this because he felt there was a reaction to what has been occurring <br />of late. He understood that some comments indicated there is not that much land left and in <br />talking about fairness and consistency, it seems the definitions should remain the same. He <br />pointed out that so far no Steering Commission recommendations had been accepted in their <br />entirety, but it was the foundation of all its work that make these refinements possible. <br />Hopefully, its recommendations will fare better later on. <br /> <br />07/01/96 <br /> -12- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.