My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
17A ATTACHMENTS
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
061708
>
17A ATTACHMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/12/2008 4:51:43 PM
Creation date
6/12/2008 4:51:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
6/17/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
17A ATTACHMENTS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
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
built on slopes greater than 25%, in that the grading for the road would not be for the <br />purpose of constructing new residential or commercial structures. However, under the <br />Initiative, it is not certain if a road built to serve a new residential project (such as, in the <br />case of the Bypass Road, development in the Spotorno Flat) is prohibited because it <br />would require grading on slopes which are 25% or greater. Similarly, because the <br />Initiative prohibits structures being placed on slopes of 25% or greater, the road's <br />construction could be prohibited if retaining walls are considered structures under the <br />Initiative and retaining walls six feet or higher are needed for the road's construction over <br />slopes of 25% or greater. <br />Depending, therefore, on how the policy is interpreted, the Bypass Road's <br />construction could be prohibited. Such a prohibition against constructing the Bypass <br />Road would create a conflict with the Circulation Element of the Happy Valley Specific <br />Plan, as it relates to both vehicular traffic and to the public trail which was proposed <br />along the Bypass Road. <br />4.3. Impact on Ability to Attract and Retain Businesses and Employees <br />It is not possible to specifically quantify how the proposed Initiative would impact the <br />City's business and employment base. There would be no direct effects since from a <br />practical perspective, the Initiative would apply almost entirely to residential <br />development, not commercial (there is only one commercial site, at the intersection of <br />Foothill Road and Dublin Canyon Boulevard, that would be affected). Furthermore, as <br />indicated in 4.1, above, the implementation of the hillside development regulations would <br />not reduce the total number of residences ultimately built in the City; it would only be the <br />location and type of housing units that would be affected. The City's jobs/housing ratio <br />would generally remain the same. <br />However, to the extent that the remaining housing to be developed under the cap would <br />include more multiple family development and smaller single family infill housing and <br />less large-lot hillside single family housing, the Initiative may well result in the <br />construction of more work force housing than would occur under the current General <br />Plan. The presence of more work force housing may be considered attractive to potential <br />businesses that are considering locating to Pleasanton. <br />However, if the Initiative's definition of a "housing unit" were to result in future assisted <br />living units being counted as housing units towards the cap (which is not the City's <br />current practice), then fewer conventional housing units would be available to be added <br />to the City's housing stock than is currently expected. As a result, the production of new <br />housing, including new work force housing, could be limited. <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.