Laserfiche WebLink
It was moved by Ms. Mohr, seconded by Mr. Pico, to introduce Ordinance No. <br />1652, to be read by title only and waiving further reading thereof, amending Chapter <br />18.74 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code (Downtown Revitalization District) to provide <br />additional flexibility for business signage in the downtown area. <br />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 />Item 7d <br />Discussion Regarding the "Menu of Subregional Land Use Policies" Prepared by the <br />Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). (SR95:84) <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked for Council review of this because he had been asked to do it <br />as part of the Tri-Valley planning process. Rather than just take his position back to <br />ABAG, he felt it would be a good idea for each Councilmember to express an opinion. <br />He believed this was a good exercise to comment on subregional policies. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis referred to question number 6 and indicated she believed there could <br />be development in some regions first and others later. Pleasanton, Livermore, and <br />Dublin are all at different stages in their growth and have different attitudes. <br /> <br /> With regard to that specific question, Mr. Swift indicated the staff had divided the <br />question because the decision of a community as to what it is allowed to develop or <br />where it is allowed to develop in its own area after the larger boundary lines are drawn <br />is more of a local decision than a subregional decision. There are arguments on both <br />sides of the issue because a case can be made for market and non-market driven reasons <br />that a subregional body would have for developing one area before another. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti's question referred to development starting where the transit centers <br />were. She believed this was having the transit issues drive community development and <br />she did not agree with that. That could be considered, but she would not necessarily <br />support that. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr indicated that the owner of a piece of property that is the logical next <br />step in development may not want to build for whatever reason. Does that mean that <br />property owner could prevent other properties around it from developing? She wanted <br />flexibility in what property develops at what time. <br /> <br />03/07/95 - 23 - <br /> <br /> <br />