My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
12 ATTACHMENTS
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2009
>
102009
>
12 ATTACHMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2009 11:21:06 AM
Creation date
10/14/2009 3:03:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
10/20/2009
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
12 ATTACHMENTS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
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
Concern regarding moving forward on rezoning these sites in advance of the <br /> comprehensive PUD Major Modification, and making decisions about the <br /> development of these sites without extensive public input. Staff believes that the <br /> rezonings should move forward at this time because of the pending litigation and <br /> the previous commitment to rezoning to allow additional high density residential <br /> development. The discussions that took place during the General Plan update <br /> discussed the concept of creating a residential and mixed use /transit oriented <br /> development in this location and included public input at two workshops and <br /> several public hearings. <br /> Questions regarding the litigation, State housing law, and the voter initiated <br /> residential cap. As noted above, State housing law requires that land counted <br /> towards fulfillment of the low- and very low income housing requirement be <br /> zoned for development at 30 or more units per acre. The residential <br /> development which could result from these rezonings can be accommodated <br /> within the 29,000 unit cap. <br /> Skepticism regarding the reduction in trips likely with transit oriented <br /> development compared to conventional development or traditional business park <br /> uses. Staff noted that additional information regarding "mode- shift" (Le., percent <br /> of trips by transit, etc. rather than single occupancy car) as a result of transit <br /> oriented development will be provided as part of the PUD Major Modification <br /> planning process. <br /> A preference expressed by one resident for a quiet environment after business <br /> hours and on weekends. No desire for additional uses or activity in the area. <br /> Concern regarding the potential impact on Hacienda assessments on existing <br /> housing units as a result of additional residential development. James Paxson <br /> responded that there is currently no reason to think the residential assessments <br /> would be raised. However, if, during the PUD Major Modification process, <br /> additional park amenities or other expenditures are proposed, the potential <br /> impact on residential assessments would be evaluated. Such a proposal would <br /> be subject to public discussion during the planning process. <br /> Concern regarding the impact of additional development on the existing <br /> infrastructure. In general there are no known infrastructure inadequacies. <br /> However, all such potential impacts will be evaluated at the time a development <br /> plan is reviewed for a specific site. <br /> Concern that residential development on the rezoned sites will move forward <br /> prior to the completion of the comprehensive PUD Major Modification. The PUD <br /> Major Modification planning process will result in an updated vision for Hacienda <br /> including revised design guidelines for individual parcels and the park as a <br /> whole. It is anticipated that approval of a development plan for any of the three <br /> sites will wait until the completion of the PUD major modification process. <br /> Case No. PRZ -48., City of Pleasanton Planning Commission <br /> Page 8 of 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.