CCMIN121685 - Laserfiche WebLink

There was a consensus to accept Proposal 2 which is that the City proposes to add about 4,600 housing units, decrease the number of jobs by about 8,000, designate about 20,000 additional acres within an Expanded Planning Area to investigate the feasibility of providing more housing, and calculate the City's contribution to Tri-Valley housing needs over a 25 year period, in order to improve the relationship between jobs and housing within a reasonable commute distance of Pleasanton. The distribution of projected jobs and housing proposed by these General Plan changes constitute Pleasanton's contribution to achieving a jobs/housing balance within the Tri-Valley Area. Holding Capacity There was no public testimony and the consensus was to accept Proposal 3 which is the net effect of redesignating the parcels listed in the following land use proposals would be to change the General Plan holding capacity within the existing Planning Area to 75,300 persons within 27,300 housing units and 77,500 jobs within 26.4 million square feet of industrial, commercial and office space. An additional 11,000 persons could be accommodated within the 4,000 housing unit holding capacity proposed for the Expanded Planning Area, although specific land uses have not been designated at this time. Specific Plans Commissioner Innes asked why there were only two Specific Plan areas. Mr. Lee responded that these two areas need a more detailed study and deserved unique treatment in terms of planning. Mr. Lee said we are trying to single out areas for specific plans. We are attempting, over time, to identify exactly what improvements need to be made neighborhood to neighborhood. Mr. John Fenstermacher, Alameda County, stated that the County is supporting the recommendation that Parcel 24 be designated as a Specific Plan area. He urged Council and staff to involve them in the study. Amelia Wilcox, Bernal Avenue, Pleasanton, asked what would happen to Parcel 16. She wanted to know if it would remain a Specific Study area as part of the General Plan. Mayor Brandes assured her that later studies will be done and there will be the opportunity for public testimony. Mr. Buster McCurtain, 123 Main Street, Pleasanton, representing the Pleasanton Joint School District, requested that schools be considered when developing that particular land. It was the consensus to accept Proposal 4 which is that the City should designate two large parts of Pleasanton as Specific Plan Areas in order to coordinate land uses, capital improvements, - 6 -