Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Hosterman thanked Councilmember Sullivan for his concerns, agreed the Council should <br />engage downtown businesses, merchants, property owners in downtown design in the future, <br />felt the proposal fits in well and could serve as a model for future discussions on what future <br />high density projects might look like. <br />Motion: It was m/s by McGovern/Thorne to make a finding that the proposed PUD development <br />plan is consistent with the General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, and introduced and waived <br />first reading of Ordinance No. 1963 approving Case PUD-55 subject to the conditions of <br />approval as shown in Exhibit B, with the additional condition that a trellis be placed above the <br />garage area for Elevation D which faces West Angela for landscaping to soften the front of the <br />house; that a balcony be installed on the second floor to provide outdoor seating, that the <br />developer pay, in addition to the in-lieu fee, $2,500 per unit which would go directly to a fund to <br />help defray the cost of the long term investment in the Bernal Park property. Motion passed by <br />the following vote: <br />Ayes: Cook-Kallio, McGovern, Thorne, Mayor Hosterman <br />Noes: Sullivan <br />Absent: None <br />Abstain: None <br />Councilmember McGovern asked to continue to look at the idea of the Bernal Park being the <br />one for higher density units in town and that staff and Council start to look at that condition in <br />order to have a park there sooner rather than later. City Manager Fialho said they can and said <br />the best way to do this is during the update of development impact fees. <br />Councilmember Sullivan felt this should be discussed and said he felt part of getting people <br />together may reveal a different idea on how the park money should be used downtown. <br />15. Review and discussion regarding campaign finance issues, including options for <br />contribution limits, political action committees /independent expenditure committees, <br />voluntary expenditure limits, and contribution reporting thresholds <br />Larissa Seto, Assistant City Attorney said the item was being brought to the Council because it <br />was adopted in the Work Plan in February. Under State law, the Political Reform Act and <br />various state statutes govern issues relating to campaign finance, contributions, expenditures <br />and reporting requirements. However, State law specifically allows local agencies to make some <br />modifications to the requirements and Pleasanton has taken advantage of this to the extent it <br />has more stringent reporting requirements. She said issues to cover will include discussions <br />about what ability the City has in regulating contributions, political action committees, <br />expenditure limits, and whether or not there is interest in modifying the reporting threshold in <br />place. <br />Regarding the Tri-Valley, she said the City of Dublin has adopted a contribution limit of $300; <br />Livermore at $250; San Ramon has a contribution limit but a voluntary expenditure limit. <br />Candidates sign a voluntary pledge adhering to the expenditure limit and agreeing to good <br />campaigning practices. The City does not try to enforce the pledge; they leave it to third parties <br />to raise the issues as to whether or not a candidate has not adhered to an expenditure limit. <br />Mayor Hosterman confirmed there were other cities in addition to San Ramon who have gone <br />this route, and asked that this information be obtained. <br />City Council Minutes 6 October 16, 2007 <br />