RES 96087 - Laserfiche WebLink

Responses to Communication: Letter from Noreen Ambrose, Deputy City Attorney, City and County of San Francisco (Representing San Francisco Water Department) The following are responses to the letter of June 13, 1996, from Ms. Noreen Ambrose to Wayne Rasmussen. Pleasanton plllnning Department. The comments in the letter are identified by number. Comment 1 The answer to the first comment in SFWD's letter [re "environmental impacts that could result from limiting housing production"] is not responsive. Response 1 See response to Comments 3 and 4, below. Comment 2 You have not explained why the DEIR tails to discuss consistency between the County's General Plan and the proposed Pleasanton Plan notwithstanding that nearly fifty square miles of territory covered by Pleasanton's Plan is in the County's jurisdiction. Response 2 Figures 21, 22, and 23 address the change in Pleasanton's Planning area under the General Plan Update. As the comment observes, the Planning Area is substantially more extensive. Figure 21 shows that the expansions are prinwily to the west and south, while two (much smaller) contractions are in the northeast comer and the southwest comer. Looking specifically at the expansion areas, Figures 22 and 23 show the land use designa- tions in the County General Plan and the Pleasanton General Plan Update, respectively. While the designations differ, under both plans the designations relate to resource management, not development. In effect, the extension of Pleasanton's planning umbrella over these lands would not affect the development expectations associated with these lands. The Pleasanton General Plan Update focused considerable effort on subregional planning in the Tri-Valley Subregion. That work, which is more recent than the East County Area Plan. and which reflects collaboration among the local governments in the area, was the vehicle for assuring planning consistency between Pleasanton and its neighbors. See Chapter XII of the General Plan. Subregional Planning Element. The relationship between the General Plan Update and subregional planning concerns is addressed in the General Plan DEIR, pp. 99- 104. Comment 3 The point of the comment is that the proposal to reduce the current annual limit on building permits for housing construction by more than fifty percent is, under state law, "presumed to have an impact on the supply of residential units available in an area which includes territory outside the jurisdiction of the city." (Evid. Code Sec. 669.5.) Your response, that "limits already exist and are not newly-proposed under the draft General Plan" ignores the fact that there is a new proposal to impose additional limitations, and the environmental implications of that policy change on regional housing needs should be disclosed in the DEIR. As noted in Response 4 below, the reduction in the annual growth cap is theoretical, since Pleasanton need not approve as many as 650 units in any given year n:..- .... See FEIR Response L6 (1). 1