01 - Laserfiche WebLink

said the City staff recommends against it, he felt it would be bad planning and counterproductive to the City's goals, and said the professional planners who prepare the general plan maps look at the individual parcels, at the contour maps, and put land use designations that fit with the parcel. He said this was done in the 1986 and 1996 General Plans. Ms. Stern has done this with the 2008 plan. He pointed out the 190-acre Liason parcel and said he drew a cul-de-sac at the end of Blessing Drive, which was in the preserve. He said Mr. Liason checked with the City prior to purchasing the property, said the general plan also calls for trails through the property and there are much manicured trails on the property now. He said Mr. Liason knew everyone wanted these to ultimately be public trails, but if the 25% sloped land is excluded, the density would be affected. If it got down-zoned to 2-3 units, the Liason's have no incentive to cooperate on the public trails. They currently have 2 units under the county zoning and the general plan change also affects many different properties. He felt property owners have a right to rely on reasonable stability in their general plan designations for their property and he asked the Council to follow the recommendation of the professional planners and not make this change to the definition of gross developable acres. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she feels the land use element and general plan was an aspiration and it did need to be flexible, as the future could not always be seen. She felt strongly about the allowable units in CLC not being counted toward the cap, said there is precedent in that they are not currently counted, she did not feel the City should limit the possibility of having seniors living in the community because typically, they were family and to have them close was beneficial and not want residents of Pleasanton to have to look elsewhere in transitioning into assisted living. She felt the impact on infrastructure was minimal, particularly on schools and she would hate to see the City limit the possibility of any family member or community member to be able to live in a community they have lived all their life. She also felt it was a place where the City could address affordable housing. She said there was a lot of verbiage about TOD's and talk of bike lanes and pedestrian walkways. She felt the City has done a reasonable job in providing these but has done a poor job of providing it for actual transportation. There has been a scare tactic used when talking about TOD's in that we do not want them to look a particular way. She felt the possibility of flexibility moving units into Hacienda was important, thinks it is important as a Council to provide direction in terms of what we think that should look like and also felt it was an opportunity to promote workforce housing. She said it was irresponsible not to build housing if commercial is built and particularly liked 12.1 that would encourage child care in business parks. She said someone mentioned looking at the MOU dealing with Staples Ranch which is in the land use element and by approving the land use element, the City is reasserting affirmation and approval of the MOU regarding Staples Ranch, and said everything that goes on that land will come before the Council and Planning Commission. Lastly, she requested removing the definition of gross developable acres, as she felt it was unreasonable to change the rules of the game when people have bought and owned property with a certain understanding and felt PUD's could be looked at on a case-by-case basis to make a decision. Councilmember Sullivan thanked staff for their work, felt the land use element was a major policy document and liked the direction the Council was taking toward sustainable development as a goal. He referred to the table on page 3 of the staff report, the calculation of available units, and said it includes the 300 units found in the recalculation. It shows the remaining units to be planned for under the 29,000 unit cap. However, if you look at the potential future units with no approvals, the number is 748. He said these were units without any approval, but is mid-point density designations in the existing General Plan, with the total number of units as 2,755. He felt there was avoter-approved cap of 29,000 which the Council was dedicated to defending and to him the units that are built should be of high value dwelling units in meeting the community's City Council Minutes 11 August 21, 2007