My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Planning Commission meeting agenda packet 7-9-25
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2020 - PRESENT
>
2025
>
07-09
>
Planning Commission meeting agenda packet 7-9-25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2025 3:39:07 PM
Creation date
12/30/2025 3:30:31 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
1025
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City of Pleasanton—Vineyard Avenue Residential Project <br />15183 Consistency Checklist Consistency Checklist <br /> <br />33 <br /> <br />University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in <br />the extent of grazing activities. The project site does not contain, and is not <br />located adjacent to, Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of <br />Statewide Importance. Nonetheless, as discussed above, because the <br />proposed project is within the Vineyard Avenue Specific Plan, the project <br />may be subject to payment of an agricultural mitigation fee at a one-to-one <br />ratio to the South Livermore Valley Agricultural Land Trust to compensate for <br />the loss of any potentially cultivable soils less than 25 percent in slope located <br />on-site, pursuant to Section V(E) of the Specific Plan. Payment of such fees <br />would contribute to the preservation of agricultural land, thereby ensuring <br />sufficient agricultural land remains in the area. <br />Based on the above, impacts related to the conversion of important <br />farmland to non-agricultural use or forest land to non-forest use were <br />adequately addressed in the Housing Element Update FEIR and the <br />proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects. Thus, the criteria for <br />requiring further CEQA review are not met. <br />b) Conflict with Existing Zoning for Agricultural Use or Williamson Act Contracts <br />Would the project: Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act <br />Contract? <br />Summary of Housing Element Update FEIR <br />The Housing Element Update FEIR indicated that none of the potential sites <br />for rezoning have existing zoning designations that would allow for <br />agricultural uses, aside from Sites 1 (Lester), 14 (St. Elizabeth Seton), and 26 (St. <br />Augustine). <br />In regard to Site 1 (Lester), its proposed pre-zoning designation is Planned Unit <br />Development: Low Density Residential, Agriculture, Open Space. This pre- <br />zoning designation would allow for agricultural uses on-site, consistent with <br />the existing zoning. <br />The Housing Element Update would redesignate Site 14 (St. Elizabeth Seton) <br />as High Density Residential (HDR) with a Planned Unit Development: High <br />Density Residential (PUD-HDR) zoning and would redesignate Site 26 (St. <br />Augustine) as Medium Density Residential (MDR) with a Planned Unit <br />Development: Medium Density Residential (PUD-MDR) zoning. These <br />redesignations and rezonings would rectify the current inconsistencies <br />between the General Plan land use designations as Medium Density <br />Residential for Site 14 and Public and Institutional for Site 26 with the zonings
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.