My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
04
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
062608
>
04
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/20/2008 3:20:06 PM
Creation date
6/20/2008 3:20:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
6/26/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
04
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
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
General Plan: <br />Land Use. The Land Use Element may need to be clarified regarding the <br />definition of ridgeline in order to coordinate with policies (adopted by the voters in 1993) <br />applicable to the Pleasanton Ridgelands. <br />Housing Element. Housing inventory tables will need to be modified to <br />reflect changed densities due to development restrictions imposed by the Initiative's <br />Policy 12.3.17 Additionally, the Growth Management discussion must change to reflect <br />the new definition of housing unit, and its application. <br />Public Facilities. The discussion about the school impact feels would need <br />to be revised to address potential lost revenue. (See Section 7, below.) The description <br />of the water distribution system may need to be revised if the transfer of units from the <br />hillside to infill areas results in system modifications, including less demand for new <br />water pipes and connections.19 <br />Conservation and Open Space. Program 13.1 of this element, which <br />currently limits properties comprised of land with no slope of less than 25% to only one <br />unit, would need to be harmonized with the proposed Policy 12.3 to determine if the <br />Initiative's exemption from its prohibition on construction on slopes of 25% or greater <br />for ten or fewer units would increase development potential on properties restricted by <br />Program 13.1. <br />Happ~ey Specific Plan: <br />Land Use. As noted in Section 4.1, above, the application of the <br />Initiative's Policy 12.3 could shift housing units away from the Spotorno Upper Valley, to <br />potentially the Spotorno Flat, or possibly out of the Happy Valley area altogether. This <br />would create an inconsistency with the Land Use Element of the Happy Valley Specific <br />Plan.20 <br />Bypass Road. The Initiative's proposed Policy 12.3 provides that <br />"[h]ousing units and structures shall not be placed on slopes of 25 percent or greater..." <br />and also prohibits "grading to construct residential or commercial structures ... on hillside <br />slopes 25% or greater, or within 100 vertical feet of a ridgeline." It would appear that a <br />road, such as the Bypass Road, that is intended to serve existing development (such as, in <br />the case of the Bypass Road, the golf course and surrounding residential lots) could be <br />17 State law requires properties to be specifically identified when density is transferred. See Government <br />Code §65863. <br />18 On page VI-9 of the 1996 General Plan. <br />i9 On page VI-4 of the 1996 General Plan. <br />20 The Spotorno Flat itself would appear not to be subject to the 25% slope limitations of the Initiative, but <br />its development could be impacted if the Initiative's application prohibited the construction of the Bypass <br />Road as proposed by Greenbriar Homes. See discussion following. <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.