My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01 ATTACHMENTS
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2012
>
112712 Special Meeting
>
01 ATTACHMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/16/2012 4:42:30 PM
Creation date
11/16/2012 4:42:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
11/27/2012
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
ATTACHMENTS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
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
built on slopes greater than 25%, in that the grading for the road would not be for the <br /> purpose of constructing new residential or commercial structures. However,under the <br /> Initiative, it is not certain if a road built to serve a new residential project(such as, in the <br /> case of the Bypass Road, development in the Spotomo Flat) is prohibited because it <br /> would require grading on slopes which are 25% or greater. Similarly, because the <br /> Initiative prohibits structures being placed on slopes of 25% or greater,the road's <br /> construction could be prohibited if retaining walls are considered structures under the <br /> Initiative and retaining walls six feet or higher are needed for the road's construction over <br /> slopes of 25% or greater. <br /> Depending, therefore,on how the policy is interpreted, the Bypass Road's <br /> construction could be prohibited. Such a prohibition against constructing the Bypass <br /> Road would create a conflict with the Circulation Element of the Happy Valley Specific <br /> Plan,as it relates to both vehicular traffic and to the public trail which was proposed <br /> along the Bypass Road. <br /> 4.3. Impact on Ability to Attract and Retain Businesses and Employees <br /> It is not possible to specifically quantify how the proposed Initiative would impact the <br /> City's business and employment base. There would be no direct effects since from a <br /> practical perspective, the Initiative would apply almost entirely to residential <br /> development, not commercial (there is only one commercial site, at the intersection of <br /> Foothill Road and Dublin Canyon Boulevard, that would be affected). Furthermore, as <br /> indicated in 4.1, above, the implementation of the hillside development regulations would <br /> not reduce the total number of residences ultimately built in the City; it would only be the <br /> location and type of housing units that would be affected. The City's jobs/housing ratio <br /> would generally remain the same. <br /> However, to the extent that the remaining housing to be developed under the cap would <br /> include more multiple family development and smaller single family infill housing and <br /> less large-lot hillside single family housing, the Initiative may well result in the <br /> construction of more work force housing than would occur under the current General <br /> Plan. The presence of more work force housing may be considered attractive to potential <br /> businesses that are considering locating to Pleasanton. <br /> However, if the Initiative's definition of a"housing unit" were to result in future assisted <br /> living units being counted as housing units towards the cap(which is not die City's <br /> current practice),then fewer conventional housing units would be available to be added <br /> to the City's housing stock than is currently expected. Asa result,the production of new <br /> housing, including new work force housing, could be limited. <br /> 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.