My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN060397
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
CCMIN060397
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:36 AM
Creation date
5/10/1999 5:45:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/3/1997
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
Ms. Michelotti asked how this works out in the overall density for the total number of <br />acres versus number of units and if they had considered a density transfer. <br /> <br /> Mr. Everett said only four buildable sites on twenty acres were being allowed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Miehelotti asked how many acres for the whole project? <br /> <br /> Ms. Trutner said 310 acres and at full buildout there would be an average five acre <br />density. This is a Specific Plan, not an application for a building permit. When applying for <br />a building permit, each property owner will have to prove there is water available and can meet <br />all the County's requirements. There is a long process ahead even if the Specific Plan is <br />approved. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala asked how firm staff would be on the gated community issue? This situation <br />is not really what was in mind when the policies were adopted. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said this community would not be a part of Pleasanton. The reason for having <br />no gated communities in the City of Pleasanton would not apply. The City analyzed the project <br />as to whether it would be consistent with the City's General Plan policies. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis said she would prefer that the Specific Plan fit within the City' s General Plan <br />constraints. It seems the problem with development in the County is the service issues. In <br />general, the City ends up being responsible, because true services cannot be provided. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said the density being proposed would be slightly greater than allowed in the <br />City. The overall density is not the issue. The issue is the addition of the forty acres that is not <br />in the General Plan. Also the failures of wells and septic tanks could become an issue. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver asked for staff to explain the Specific Plan process. Does the proposed <br />Specific Plan entitle people to assume that the County will approve development under the guide- <br />lines. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said what was being proposed in the County is a Specific Plan that sets forth <br />the parameters that would allow subsequent subdivisions pursuant to the zoning designations that <br />would apply to the properties. The present zoning allows one-acre parcels and it is being <br />changed to two-acre parcels in the Specific Plan. The community is trying to set standards that <br />will apply to the entire area. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver reiterated his desire for the County to cooperate with the City and for <br />consistency with the Tri-Valley planning principles. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked if the Specific Plan had a cap on the number of units? <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 06/03/97 <br />Minutes 15 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.