My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
RES 83501
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1980-1989
>
1983
>
RES 83501
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/19/2012 12:39:49 PM
Creation date
2/4/2000 11:54:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
11/8/1983
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
Fact. Under this alternative, more Pleasanton <br />workers would commute to Pleasanton. There <br />would almost certainly be a lower jobs/housing <br />index, i.e. more jobs than housing. The exist- <br />ing General Plan Review Committee is currently <br />considering the ramifications of commercial and <br />industrial development in addition to the ap- <br />proved projects. Proposals for additional de- <br />velopment will be considered, with appropriate <br />environmental review after that process is <br />completed. <br /> <br />Increased Residential CaDacitV Alternative. <br /> <br />c.1 Finding. The Increased Residential Capacity <br /> Alternative is infeasible. <br /> <br />Fact. The Increased Residential Capacity Alter- <br />native is an alternative to the Amendment. <br />Under this Alternative, City would amend the <br />Land Use Element of the General Plan to allow <br />the number of housing units in Pleasanton to be <br />increased. The Amendment would not be adopted <br />but the Project could be approved. The In- <br />creased Residential Capacity Alternative might <br />result in less regional traffic congestion if <br />the average commute distance were reduced (as a <br />result of substantial numbers of Pleasanton <br />workers choosing to live in Pleasanton). This <br />alternative would increase traffic on local <br />roadways and increase demand on community ser- <br />vices. The increase in City's fiscal base may <br />be insufficient to finance services and improve- <br />ments required by the increased residential <br />development. <br /> <br />Fact. The Increased Residential Capacity Alter- <br />n'~ve is inconsistent with current General Plan <br />Land Use Element designations. <br /> <br />Fact. Due to existing general plan policies the <br />annual residential growth rate may not exceed <br />two percent (2%). <br /> <br />Residential Communitv Alternative. <br /> <br />d.1 Finding. The Residential Community Alternative <br /> is infeasible. <br /> <br />d.2 Fact. Under the Residential Community Alter- <br /> native, the Amendment would not be approved and <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.