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
Summary of the Fiscal Impact of Counting Assisted Living Units Towards the Cites <br />Housing Cap <br />Table 12 presents the findings of the fiscal impact to the City's General Fund on an <br />annual basis and the reduction in the City's (and other agencies') development impact <br />fees if 396 additional CLC units were counted toward the City's housing cap: <br /> <br />Summa Table 12 <br />of Fiscal Im <br />acts <br /> Range of Reduction <br /> Minimum Maximum <br />Annual <br />Reduction in Net Revenues Per Year $ 101,000 $ 194,000 <br />One-Time Development Fees <br />City $ 6,539,148 $ 11,485,584 <br />Pleasanton Unified School District $ 1,083,456 $ 11,947,320 <br />Other Agencies $ 12.402,324 $ 15,094,332 <br />Total $ 20,024,928 $ 38,527,236 <br />8. Conclusion <br />The twin purposes of the Save Pleasanton's Hills & Housing Cap initiative broadly reflect <br />similar hillside protection and growth limit interests that have previously been adopted by <br />Pleasanton voters (e.g., Measure F, the Housing Cap, and Urban Growth Boundaries). <br />However, reading the Initiative exposes areas where additional clarification is needed to <br />implement its provisions, such as how to determine if a slope is 25% or greater. While <br />the General Plan, Specific Plans, and Municipal Code include regulations and policies <br />which address hillside development regulation and growth control provisions, there <br />remain gaps between the Initiative and existing practice which the City Council will need <br />to consider carefully in the future. This includes defining key terms of the Initiative, such <br />as "ridgeline", "slope" and "structure"; as well as developing regulations for calculating <br />floor area ratio /home size, managing grading, measuring slope, establishing developable <br />areas on parcels, and clarifying exemptions. <br />Additionally, interpretation will also be needed regarding the application of the <br />Initiative's definition of housing unit to assisted living facilities and extended stay hotels. <br />Clarification could occur through subsequent development of an implementing ordinance. <br />The subsequent development of an ordinance would be important for such clarification <br />and interpretation of the Initiative's language in terms of whether and where housing <br />units can be built, as well as whether and where the roads and infrastructure that provides <br />access and services to such homes can be built. For example, the fate of the Happy <br />Valley Bypass Road would have to be addressed in the context of the Initiative and <br />subsequent implementing ordinances. <br />38 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.