15 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

[*sneral Plan: and Use. The Land Use Element may need to be clarified regarding the definition of ridgeline in order to coordinate wtth policies (adopted by the voters in 1993) applicable to the Pleasanton Ridgelands. Ho ~ na Element. Housing inventory tables will need to be modified to reflect chan~ed densittes~due to development ement discussion must change tovreflect Policy 12.3. ~ Additionally, the Growth Mana6 the new definition of housing unit, and its application. A,hilc Facilities. The discussion about the school impact fee° would need to be revised to address potential lost revenue. (See Section 7, below.) The description of the water distribution system may need W be revised if the transfer of unit finm the hillside to infill areas results in system modifications, including less demand for new water pipes and connections.19 program 13.1 of this element, which cturentiy limits properties comprised of land with no slope of less than 25% to only one unit, would need to be harmonized with the proposed Policy 12.3 to determine if the Initiative's exemption fi+om its prohibition on construction on slopes of 25% or greater for ten or fewer units would inerease development pote~ial on properties restricted by program 13.1. L, n ae. As meted in Section 4.1, above, the application of the Initiative's Policy 12.3 could shift housing units away from the Spotorno Upper Valley, to potentially the Spotomo Flat, or possibly out of the Happy Valley area altogether This would create an inconsistency with the Land Use Element of the Happy Valley Specific Plan20 Bwass Road. The Initiative's proposed Policy 12.3 provides that "[i-lousiag ~~ ~ structtres shau not be placed on slopes of 25 percent or greater • •" and also prohibits "grading to construct residential or commercial structures ... on hillside slopes 25% or greater, or within 100 vertical feet of a ridgeline." It would appear that a road, such as the Bypass Road, that is intended to serve existing development (such aa, in the case of the Bypass Road, the golf course and surrounding residential lots) could be n State law requva propeRia to be specifically identified whm denairy u trssaferred See Goverwneat Code §63E63. " Oa page VI-9 of the 1996 General Piro " Gn paga VI-4 of the 19% General Plm xo ~ Spotorno p~ itaslf would appear not to bs subjsd to the 23% slops limitatiooa of the Initiative, but in development could bs impaeoed itthe Initiative's applksdoa prohibited the conaa+rction of the Bypw Road a proposed by Greenbrier Boma. See discussion following.