20 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Dv {s. Janice Stern Mr. Brian Dolan November 24, 2008 Page 2 V reason tbie, the assumed average densities for holding capacity are rem low to reflect current economics of land development. Given the environment expected for the next 20 years, average FAR levels should be at least 40% for industrial and commercial uses and 35% for business park 2.2 uses. 'We suggest that the Draft General Plan he revised to acknowledge these higher rates and also provide that the subsequent Eau Pleasanton Specific Plan and environmental sntpacr report for the East P easanron Specific Plan should address the possibility of these higher FAR levels. 3. Parcel Specific. Planning Should be Deferred to Specific Plan Although the Draft General Plan does nor anal }u or designate land uses for the future specific plan area, rise Draft General Plan includes some assumptions regarding the location of certain uses within the future specific plan area, First, on Figure 74, the Draft Central Plan makes cerrair assumptions regarding where "Potentially Developable Land' may exist in the vicinity of the Chain of Lakes, bur dots not include the parcel of land ro the northwest of Cope Lake and south of 2.3 Lake fl as Potentially Developable land, This area, which includes approximately 5.5 acres of land, includes potentially developable Iand. Given that the City does not appear to have conducted any projec: -level review of this area, we believe than it is premature to determine whether this area cnnrai as any potentially developable land and rhar such analysis should he deferred until the City undcnakes preparation of the future specific plan. which would be the appropriate forum in which to make detailed policy And use determinations for specific parcels within the specific plan area. Second, the Draft General Plan, on "Fable 6-1 and Figure 7.4 and, appears to show the aproximare size, location, and configuration of the contemplated community park in the specifc plan area and contains language regarding potential open space ttscs in these areas. Again, rrsoiu' ion of these issues should be deferred to the specific plan, when proposed development can be 2.4 reviewed on a project level basis, We recommend that Figure 7-4 he modified to reflccr the notation shown on Figure 6 -2 of the Draft General Plan, which shows the general vicinity of the future park without committing to any particular size, location, or configuration 4. Circulation culation Issues The Draft General Plan notes, at 3 -30. than the completion of 11 Charm Road is a signif saint and necessary part of the City's local circulation system and once constructed, "will also provide relief to the Pleasanton network by providing a new roadway with direct freeway access along he eastern edge of Pleasanton." El Chaim Road will also include two `Gateway Intersections" at Storteridgc and Stanley, Given the Citywide and regional significance of El Chun, Road, we 23 suggest than the City prioritize the a- instruction of El Charm Road in the General Plan As a regional intpto±emenr ro he constructed as soon as possible rather than the 2011-2015 horizon currently noted on Table 3.8. 'The Draft General Plan and the DEIR both appear to asswne that the Sroncridge Drive Extension will he constructed, In light of the uncertainty regarding the Stioncndge Drive Extern ion, stn suggest that the EIR analyze traffic assuming both that the Sroneridge Drive V