CCMIN061813 - Laserfiche WebLink

• He supported curvilinear street design; • He could envision and in fact would prefer the OSC to remain in its current location but feels than any alternative should address the relocation of PGS; • He favored higher density development to be grouped around a community center With regards to RHNA and its allocation throughout the City, he said that the lawsuit, Hacienda TOD process and recent Housing Element certification served to identify and rezone 70 acres for high density development. He agreed that this plan should not be RHNA driven but also noted that none of the high density zoning to date has occurred on the east side. He referred to Ms. Dennis' comments, which beg the question of whether the City is attempting to meet its low and very-low income housing needs with this plan. He encouraged everyone to focus on market rate and affordability in terms of workforce housing and what it means in Pleasanton, rather than any preconceived notions of the targeted demographic. With regards to alternatives, he agreed that it is important to ensure that the City does not shortchange itself throughout the process. He therefore supported further analysis of Atternatve 6 as a worst case scenario, noting that they would retain the ability to scale it back to an appropriate fit for the community. Councilmember Brown agreed that development should bear the cost a` infrastructure. She acknowledged that the extension of El Charro Road is a part of the City's circulation plan but said she was put off by estimates that it would run $70-90 million just to access El Charro and then an additional amount to go under or over the railroad tracks. Mr. Dolan clarified that the overall infrastructure cost is estimated at $60 million, which includes El Charro, the under crossing and the extension. Councilmember Brown said that was more acceptable but even assuming 1,2)0 housing units, the project would run an incredible $50,000 per unit. She said she conducted significant research on development relative to the Urban Growth Boundary, both with the General Plan and Measure FF. She read from the General Plan where it speaks to exemptions for land and gravel in east Pleasanton, but noted that this is only for non-urban development. Mr. Dolan stressed that staff is not advocating for any one particular methodology but clarified that a more careful read of that language provides for two programs. One discusses the circumstances under which urban services can be extended beyond the boundary and the other discusses under what circumstances the Council may move the boundary and that is where it references major versus minor. Councilmember Brown asked if staff feels 100 acres is a minor change. Mr. Dolan said it is a decision for the Council, not staff. Councilmember Brown respectfully disagreed and said when she voted for Measure FF in 1996, she did understand it to mean the boundary could be moved to encompass either Cope Lake or the land below. She responded to the remaining questions posed by staff as follows: • She would prefer the OSC to remain at its current location. She also worried about the expense of relocating PGS and suggested there might be some creative mitigation efforts to improve the surrounding area. She also suggested they look at creative circulation adjustments, perhaps with access to PGS off of Busch or Boulder; • A public school site, which she envisioned being land gifted for use as both a park and school, should be included; • She supported curvilinear street design; City Council Minutes Page 11 of 13 June 18,2013