10 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

densification of existing City neighborhoods or rezoning existing commercial uses that provide valuable community amenities and catalyze the local economy. 3. The proposed USL mixed use project includes industrial, neighborhood serving retail, a potential school site, and development of a variety of unit types at varying densities, including affordable high density residential development of 240 multi-family units on approximately 8 acres, with the remainder of providing 6 to 16 u/acre of detached and attached single family units. See Exhibit B. 4. The USL Parcels offer mixed use internalized development of housing, neighborhood retail, industrial, parks and recreational lake, offering an environment where residents will be able live, work, play, and shop in one convenient location. 5. Amenities would include the proposed Cope lakeside public park, completion of the Iron Horse bike trail connection from Valley Avenue to Stanley via Busch Road and the potential for a 10-acre school site. 6. The USL Parcels can be developed utilizing direct access to Busch Road, an existing improved public street. Transportation planning could also include an El Charro public road connection to Stanley and/or north to I-580. Transportation and circulation have been extensively studied through the East Pleasanton Specific Plan process, and developing the USL parcels could improve regional circulation. 7. Inclusion of the USL Parcels in the HE Update offers the City the opportunity to complete its East Pleasanton Specific Plan effort. As noted during the Planning Commission’s November 10 meeting, there is community interest in developing housing in East Pleasanton. There is ample time for the City to finalize the East Pleasanton Specific Plan and rezone the USL Parcels within three years of the City’s adoption of the HE Update, as required by State law. In fact, the City’s planning work would benefit from over fifteen years of prior planning work conducted for East Pleasanton. We also note that some concerns expressed in the November 10, 2021 Planning Commission staff report and during the November 10, 2021 Planning Commission meeting do not acknowledge the significant progress made during the City’s East Pleasanton Specific Plan process. For example, the staff report expressed concern regarding the proposed development of housing on the 15.6-acre parcel east of the Amazon property and outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). However, during the City’s planning process for the East Pleasanton Specific Plan, the City Council, Planning Commission, and Specific Plan Task Force all supported completion of a minor UGB amendment to include that land within the UGB and align the UGB with the proposed road alignment linking El Charro Road to Stanley Road. The County has also expressed support for the annexation into the City of unincorporated land within the East Pleasanton Specific Plan area. As indicated by these examples, the City’s prior planning efforts addressed significant issues, and those prior efforts similarly provide a significant platform from which the East Pleasanton Specific Plan process could be reinitiated.