My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN090595
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCMIN090595
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:54:18 AM
Creation date
5/20/1999 11:33:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
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).
View images
View plain text
Ms. Dennis asked if the property owner or developer might come and ask for a General <br />Plan amendment to a different designation? Would they have to come and designate for high <br />density in order to get five to eight units per acre. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rasmussen stated that there are other provisions in the General Plan that allows for <br />different ways of getting a density bonus and it might be accomplished with the medium density <br />and some bonuses on top. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked if there are any limits for high density. What is the top end of high <br />density? How is affordable housing achieved if someone comes in with a medium density <br />property and gets it rezoned for more units. Once the property is changed, they can build 4-5 <br />units. How does the City define the limits on medium transition to high. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rasmussen replied that no upper limit is defined for high density designation and the <br />recommendations don't propose to change that. The City will continue to review on a project <br />by project basis and determine what the most appropriate upper limit should be. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver commented that questions of an environmental nature will be addressed <br />in the EIR document, the non-environmental questions answered in a staff informational report, <br />and the alternatives will be developed through the environmental review process. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked if it is to be assumed that everything that was proposed will have <br />some type of comparison with what is currently in the General Plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rasmussen stated that all the Steering Committee's recommendations will be <br />incorporated into the updated General Plan and where there are environmental changes, they <br />would be evaluated in the EIR. Where there are planning implications or alternatives requested, <br />they would be evaluated and the information would be provided in a staff report. When the <br />documents come back to the Council, the updated General Plan, the EIR and the staff report will <br />have the updated General Plan as was recommended by the Steering Committee with a <br />substantial amount of analysis of environmental issues and planning issues, and if the Council <br />agrees with the recommendations, Council can approve them or can consider alternatives. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if the General Plan changes would be adopted before the EIR is done? <br /> <br /> Mr. Rasmussen stated that as proposed, the General Plan would be adopted before the <br />environmental analysis is conducted for the West Las Positas interchange only. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver commented that a major interchange cannot be separated from the <br />development of the City. Council cannot adopt a General Plan without understanding what the <br />major arterials and off ramps will be. This should be analyzed in the General Plan EIR even <br />if the decision doesn't necessarily get made at that moment. <br /> <br />09/05/95 -17- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.