20 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

7. E -mail from Anne Fox, Former Planning Commissioner 7.1 The future of East Pleasanton was discussed as part of the land -use discussions at a Joint Workshop of the Planning Commission and City Council on January 24, 2006. At that Workshop and at subsequent Planning Commission and City Council meetings to discuss the Draft Land Use Element, there was a consensus that the East Pleasanton area would be identified as a future Specific Plan area with several types of land uses to be studied as part of the Specific Plan process. Throughout the proposed General Plan and DEIR processes it was made clear that development assumptions for this area were "placeholders" only until the appropriate land uses and development intensities were determined by the Specific Plan process. 7.2 Please see answer 6.1, above. The environmental impact of the park remaining Business Park would be very similar to the proposed General Plan analysis; the only difference is the 333 additional residential units, a fairly insubstantial addition at the level of a city-wide analysis. The Mixed Use designation would allow the accommodation of additional residential units over and above the 333 currently "allocated" but any additional allocation would be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. As to a rationale, there has been discussion throughout the General Plan update process of looking for ways to encourage more affordable residential development in the city. Furthermore, because of the passage of Measures PP and QQ there are likely to be fewer residential units built in hill areas and therefore more units available in other areas of the city. The Mixed Use designation in Hacienda would allow the Planning Commission and City Council to approve additional residential units in areas close to transit and other uses. 7.3 Please see answer 6.2, above. 7.4 The land -use designation used for Staples Ranch in the proposed General Plan is the same as that used for this area in the 1996 General Plan. The stripes represent Residential High Density and Residential Medium Density, with a "capsule" of Park and Recreation and Commercial use. 7.5 Agreed. The Oak Grove approval did not include a formal action to change the General Plan. As part of the General Plan update staff initially recommended a change to Parks and Recreation and Residential Rural Density. However, as noted by the commenter, a Residential Low Density designation more closely matches the approved density and lot sizes. Therefore, staff now recommends the proposed General Plan Land Use Map be changed to show the Oak Grove development as Parks and Recreation and Residential Low Density. 7.6 This concept is not part of the 1996 General Plan, although the idea was briefly discussed during that General Plan update. Further legal research is needed to determine if a supermajority vote can be required. Since this proposal relates to decision making at the City Council level, the City Council should provide direction to staff if it wishes to pursue this issue. 7.7 The issue of the regulation of child care and related uses involving the supervision and instruction of minors is currently being worked on by staff. Options to deal with this issue final response to comments with throw pages 35