My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
4
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2020 - PRESENT
>
2023
>
01-11
>
4
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/5/2023 4:16:06 PM
Creation date
1/5/2023 3:39:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
1/11/2023
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Document Relationships
4_Exhibit A
(Attachment)
Path:
\BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\AGENDA PACKETS\2020 - PRESENT\2023\01-11
4_Exhibit B
(Attachment)
Path:
\BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\AGENDA PACKETS\2020 - PRESENT\2023\01-11
4_Exhibit C
(Attachment)
Path:
\BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\AGENDA PACKETS\2020 - PRESENT\2023\01-11
4_Exhibits A-C
(Attachment)
Path:
\BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\AGENDA PACKETS\2020 - PRESENT\2023\01-11
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Draft Housing Element, EIR, and General Plan Amendments Planning Commission <br />6 of 11 <br /> <br />review and approval would be limited to a conformance analysis of proposed projects <br />with the Objective Design Standards. Staff had suggested approval by the Planning <br />Commission (versus requiring both Planning Commission and City Council review) for <br />this latter path. <br /> <br />Staff has adjusted the process described above in a few ways. <br /> <br />First, to avoid any ambiguity, the review process will be made more distinct from the <br />PUD process, and it will instead be an entirely separate process called a “Housing Site <br />Conformance Review”. Instead of all projects automatically being reviewed by the <br />Planning Commission, the default would be for review and action by the Zoning <br />Administrator. Projects of a certain size (i.e., projects over 50 units, exclusive of <br />ADUs/JADUs) would trigger review and action by the Planning Commission. In both <br />instances, review and action would be limited to conformance analysis of the proposed <br />projects with the Objective Design Standards. Public notice would be required for both <br />the ZA and Planning Commission review, and, as with all approval actions specified in <br />the PMC, both the ability to “call up” a project for review by the Planning Commission or <br />City Council, and the ability for an appeal to be filed, would be provided. <br /> <br />Housing Rezone Sites <br />The City Council also discussed the list of 24 proposed sites for potential re-zoning and <br />provided direction on how the list should be modified and shortened. <br /> <br />The City Council was generally supportive of the recommended rezone sites as <br />recommended by staff with some modifications as follows: <br />• Reduce the density of Area 25 (PUSD District) to eight to 12 du/acre, although <br />allow the total units to be clustered on a minimum of approximately seven acres <br />of the site, to accommodate a reconstructed Village High School or other district <br />facility on the remaining approximately three acres; <br />• Include Area 26 (St. Augustine); and <br />• Increase the developable area of Area 27 (PUSD Vineyard) so that up to <br />approximately seven acres of the property can be used for housing (with the <br />remainder as open space along Vineyard Avenue) and modify the density range <br />to three to four du/acre. <br /> <br />With these changes incorporated, 18 sites are included for rezoning in the Housing <br />Element. These sites are included in Table 1 below. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.