My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC-92-34
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
PC-92-34
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2006 9:33:53 AM
Creation date
4/20/2005 4:07:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
4/22/1992
DOCUMENT NO
PC-92-34
NOTES 3
OPPOSITION TO THE PLEASANTON RIDGELANDS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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
<br />PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> <br />ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. PC-92-34 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE <br />PLEASANTON RIDGELANDS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Pleasanton Ridgelands General Plan Amendment <br />provides a conceptual plan to retain open space and <br />acquire parkland in the Pleasanton Ridgelands, with a <br />funding mechanism based on a density transfer system <br />which creates a separate community consisting of up to <br />2,640 residential units, 7,000 residents, 1,600 school- <br />aged children, supporting retail and commercial <br />services, public facilities, public and private <br />amenities, and a primary access road originating from <br />Pleasanton; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment was not subject to the <br />normal planning process with the opportunity for <br />modification and change by the Planning commission and <br />City Council; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the combined effects of this development would <br />adversely impact Pleasanton and its neighboring <br />communities by: increased traffic, the construction of <br />a new road from Foothill Road to the top of the ridge, <br />potential development on the ridge face, increased <br />demands for water and sewage treatment, damage to the <br />natural environment and subsequent loss of wildlife <br />habitat and watershed land, and the loss of potential <br />Regional Parkland; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, there are other viable alternatives for acquisition of <br />ridgeland parks and preservation of open space without <br />the development of 2,640 housing units and support <br />services; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the density transfer program mandated by the General <br />Plan Amendment removes the city's normal ability to <br />reduce density in order to mitigate negative impacts; <br />and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, even though the plan states that development must be <br />fiscally self sufficient, it is questionable if or how <br />this goal can be achieved without an unrealistic burden <br />on future residents; and <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.