My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN121685
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1985
>
CCMIN121685
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:50:22 AM
Creation date
11/9/1999 12:18:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
Parcel 14 - Rose Avenue: Mr. Lee asked for clarification as to <br />which portions of the parcel should be designated as MDR and <br />which for HDR. Staff feels there is a need for High Density. <br />Both Rose and Division can funnel traffic or the High Density <br />designation could be made closer to Valley which is a larger <br />arterial. <br /> <br />Mr. Brandes felt that it would be appropriate to hear from the <br />people in attendance who wished to speak during the public <br />hearing before making a decision on this parcel. Mr. Lee <br />requested that the recommendation be postponed until the public <br />hearing. <br /> <br />Parcel 27 - Busch: Mr. Lee pointed out that the property owner <br />would like to have 56 acres of this parcel to Use for Medium <br />Density Residential. He asked whether it would be a good idea to <br />put housing next to a corporation yard. <br /> <br />Councilmember Wood asked how long they will be mining out there. <br />Mr. Lee answered that they would be mining for approximately <br />another 50 years. Mr. Lee also pointed out that the California <br />Division of Mines and Geology has designated the area as a <br />"regionally significant construction aggregate resources" area. <br /> <br />The consensus was to recommend Option 2 which is to redesignate <br />the 56 acre portion to MDR. <br /> <br />Proposal l0 - Growth Management Policies: Mr. Lee asked for some <br />clarification on the issue of unused annual allocations and <br />exemptions and what effect they would have on the residential <br />growth rate. He outlined the various options. <br /> <br />Commissioner Innes asked Mr. Lee how the Residential Review <br />Committee felt about carryovers. Mr. Lee responded that they <br />felt the carryovers should be added to next year's allocation as <br />long as it did not exceed the maximum. <br /> <br />Mayor Brandes stated that is is very important to have the <br />flexibility on an annual basis and he concurred with the <br />carryover. He feels that it is important to have a benchmark and <br />also take into consideration other policies such as low income <br />and 25% multiple housing. He feels strongly that a benchmark is <br />necessary. It's OK if we determine the number of units as it <br />relates to population, but we should have some sort of benchmark. <br />We should consider how many housing units will be built during <br />the next few years. <br /> <br />Commissioner Innes stated that with the 1000 unit cap, the market <br />will establish the number of units built this year. He said that <br />if Our allocations get too far in advance, we will have a hard <br />time seeing the impact of what is to happen. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee responded that if we can plan for 650 or 1000 units, we <br />can size our roads and infrastructure based on that number. <br /> <br /> - 3 - <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.