My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
2127
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1980-1989
>
1982
>
2127
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/18/2008 10:34:27 AM
Creation date
7/26/2007 1:44:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
1/13/1982
DOCUMENT NO
2127
DOCUMENT NAME
GP-81-10
NOTES
CITY OF PLEASANTON
NOTES 2
AMEND GENERAL PLAN, ALLOW FOR MODIFICATIONS TO GROWTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OF CITY
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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
The General Plan envisions the urbanization of the area within the <br />sphere of influence (excluding the Dublin area) according to the Lard <br />Use Map. Urbanization of adjacent lands is planned to fill out the <br />city, providing industrial and residential development necessary to <br />complete the planned community of 76,000 persons. In order to meet <br />the goals of the other elements of the General Plan, development of <br />unincorporated, neighboring lands must occur as shown on the General <br />Plan D1ap. No area outside the city is served by all the urban ser- <br />vices normally associated with urban development. Without services, <br />especially sewer and water facilities, development in neighboring <br />areas likely would not be able to develop at the planned density. <br />"Rural development" (large lot subdivisions served by private streets, <br />septic tanks, wells, etc.), should it occur, would make the attain- <br />ment of General Plan densities very difficult. Annexations would <br />be difficult if not impossible, development at urban densities would <br />be more expensive and difficult because of the scattered residences, <br />improvement districts would be difficult to create, and in integrated <br />development plan for such areas would be difficult to design. Such <br />city services as streets and parks would be utilized by residents of <br />nearby unincorporated areas, creating a drain on city resources. <br />Should an area within Pleasanton's sphere develop at urbanized densities <br />rather than as "rural development," it would have to provide city ser- <br />vices or contract for them. New urban services would be duplicative <br />of those existing in Pleasanton and would be inefficient, and possibly <br />uneconomical, repetitions of city functions. Pleasanton has planned <br />and installed its capital improvements to accommodate expansion into <br />the neighboring areas shown on the Land Use Map as developing; street" <br />water mains, sewer trunk lines, etc. - all have been sized for eventual <br />extension into the neighboring areas. <br />Municipal expansion within designated spheres is the policy of Alameda <br />County, AEAG, and the State of California and provides the most <br />logical, efficient means of developing unincorporated lands. Orderly <br />development within the sphere under the direction of Pleasanton is <br />essential to ensure the implementation of the General Plan. <br />Policy].0: To plan city facilities and services to accom- <br />modate ultimately the urbanization of those areas within <br />Pleasanton's sphere of influence as shown on the Land <br />Use Map. <br />Policy 11: To promote cooperative planning between the city <br />and county to ensure that all future development in un- <br />incorporated areas is consistent with the Pleasanton General <br />Plan and does not compromise the fulfillment of the ultimate <br />development of the planning area and that urban intensity <br />development be under the control of Pleasanton. <br />-8- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.