01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Becky Dennis questioned what the workforce of Pleasanton at build-out would be, felt the land use element was not sustainable because there was so much commuting that was necessary. She distributed information to the Council and said she prepared calculations by using the information in the land use element about employee density and square footage for each type of business park area. She believes the public did not want Pleasanton to be generating an environmental problem for the remainder of the region. James Paxson supported staff's recommendations and urged the Council to support the plan. They like the approach taken with the mixed use said the idea of flexibility was also very important to him and asked to look at a different allocation for units newly calculated under the revised assessment as well as the assisted living units. He stated if those were re-allocated to the Hacienda Specific Plan a planning allocation of about 900 units would be in place. He asked that for the purposes of defining the preferred plan, the Council look to do a re-allocation to their project. He felt it could be done without making any other changes to other commitments. They have had very important endorsements--they received a planning designation from the Greenbelt Alliance, and if successful getting a plan approved it would attract financing for improvements for their planned area. They also received a second tier placement within the Great Communities Initiative. Bill Hirst said he was interested in the slope density provision recommended by the Planning Commission, said he and 7 other families have owned a piece of property west of Foothill Road since 1972 and they feel strongly that it would be unfair to effectuate the Planning Commission's recommendation. They encouraged the Council to retain the current general plan land use application to these properties on Foothill Road and look at them on a case-by-case basis. Mary Roberts felt the new designations were excellent, thanked everyone for the mixed use and water management and recreation designation, felt current mixed use was open-ended in its number of units due to density problems, felt the rural density residential should be changed, felt all RDR was up against the urban growth boundary and in south Pleasanton, felt it was an antiquated county designation of 1 home per 5 acres, felt the City did PUD's to put houses where they fit and she requested a hillside residential designation be formulated. Councilmember Sullivan referred to Policy 7 and 8, page 229 and 230, and questioned if these were new policies. Mr. Iserson said they are new policies but they were taken from the text of the old General Plan land use element and they felt it was more appropriate to move them to policies because they were policy-like in their approach. Councilmember McGovern said she could not find this and the open-endedness of "any housing type". Mr. Iserson referred to page 2-5 of the marked up version of the existing 1996 general plan, stating the intent was to cluster development and to say that the General Plan, like Rural Residential, gives it an overall density number or calculation for a property to get the number of units. And, it encourages clustering units away from steep sloped areas, areas where there are many trees or creeks, and moving it toward the areas of the site that are more developable, flatter and easier to access with less environmental issues. In order to do this, the plan provides for a higher density type of housing product. However, it would work out to the average density over the entire property the same if you did 5-acre lots. He confirmed the "any housing type" wording was in the existing General Plan. Peter MacDonald, addressed the City Council, representing Rumi and Barbara Liason, said the Planning Commission has recommended a last minute change to the land use element and requested changing the definition of gross developable acreage to exclude 25% sloped land. He City Council Minutes 10 August 21, 2007