My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 05:135
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2005
>
SR 05:135
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/20/2005 3:41:50 PM
Creation date
5/20/2005 3:28:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
5/24/2005
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 05:135
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
80
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
In effect, it appears that the residential densities in the Housing Element are locked in. If <br />the City wants to reduce residential densities in one area, then it must increase in another <br />area. This appears to be the case for any reduction in residential densities, not just a <br />down-zoning from one classification to another, such as high-density residential to <br />medium-density residential. Any statutory ambiguity in this regard will ultimately be <br />resolved with subsequent legislation or litigation. <br /> <br />This statute has significant implications for the General Plan Update and particularly the <br />Oak Grove/Lin property, which is shown in the Housing Element with a "holding capacity" <br />of 98 units, and the Lurid Ranch II property, which is shown in the Housing Element with a <br />"holding capacity" of 86 units. If smaller projects were ultimately desired for those <br />properties, then the City would need to make the two findings below: <br /> <br /> 1. The reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing <br /> element. <br /> To do this, the City might discuss the desire to provide affordable housing, which <br /> is less feasible at lower densities, given the cost of raw land in this area. Thus, <br /> increasing densities in other areas would more likely support affordable housing, <br /> which wouM be consistent with the City's General Plan and Housing Element, <br /> particularly in light of the voter-approved housing cap. <br /> <br /> 2. The remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to <br /> accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need. <br /> To do this, the City wouM need to show additional available and adequate sites <br /> beyond those already identified in the Housing Element (which already includes <br /> sites needing rezoning in order to allow 812 affordable units of which 186 are <br /> located in Hacienda Park). <br /> <br /> NEXT STEPS <br /> <br /> The next workshop is scheduled for July 12, 2005. It will include: <br /> <br /> · a discussion of"cut-through" traffic of all types, possible policy measures, and <br /> implications for future traffic improvements which may be contemplated; and <br /> <br /> · a discussion of alternative circulation networks, including street extensions/widening, <br /> using the "Existing Plus Approved, Year 2025" land use base. <br /> <br /> With the completion of these analyses, Council should be able to provide direction <br /> regarding its preferred circulation network. <br /> <br /> SR05:135 <br /> Page 10 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.