CCMIN061813 - Laserfiche WebLink

given only to those in favor of increased density and more units. She recommended that the Council withhold a decision on the EPSP until it acts on the upcoming Housing Element She also asked that staff reassess the distribution of RHNA units across all of Pleasanton. Blair Wolfinger, Ironwood resident, said he strongly agreed with other speakers. He noted that a constant them in both the EPSP and Housing Element task force meetings has been an equitable distribution of RHNA throughout Pleasanton. He expressed concerns over how tD best balance single and multi-family development here and throughout Pleasanton and asked that a Housing Element study occur before making any final decisions on the EPSP. Ganping Ju said he moved to Pleasanton for the wonderful schools, sense of community and proximity to work. He asked the Council to keep in mind that placing undue burden on the east side will change the very character that drew him to the City in the first place. He said he would like to see a reasonable mix of units that does not exceed 60% multi-family. He noted that Ironwood ha> a strong and active adult community and suggested the Council consider a more adult focus that would have lesser impacts on schools. He also asked that they look at a modified alternative 1 that moves the higher density housing away from existing neighborhoods. Kay Ayala expressed concern over what she feels is a rushed process and RHNA driven plan. She said she had a number of questions about Zone 7, schools, roads, and the Urban Growth Boundary and that there appeared to be misunderstanding amongst both developers and the task force regarding which RHNA numbers must be zoned before December 2014. She clarified that it is only the lawsuit related RHNA that must be assigned by that time and asked staff to report on how many units that is. Mr. Dolan corrected her, explaining that all concerns related to the lawsuit were addressed in the City's last Housing Element. He explained that another Housing Element deadline is approaching, which will require rezoning to accommodate the next round of RHNA, but that this has to do with state law and not the lawsuit. In order to avoid a similar lawsuit and the issue of development by right, it is imperative that the City meet the deadline that is currently set for December 2014. Councilmember Brown referred to the staff report where it discusses the 2014 estimated inventory and asked staff to confirm that no rezonings are required by December 2014. Mr. Dolan said "no," directed her attention further across the table being referenced, and said a total of 797 units must be accommodated by December 2014. When Councilmember Brown questioned this explanation, he clarified that the deadline for the 2014-2022 planning period is currently 2014, not 2022. He further explained that the deadline is tied to the date on which the Regional -Transportation Plan is adopted. If adopted on time, the deadline will be December 2014. If that ac:ion is delayed, local jurisdictions might have several more months. Mayor Thorne closed the public comment. BREAK: Mayor Thorne called a brief recess at 9:06 p.m. and reconvened the regular meeting at 9:13 p.m. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio responded to the questions posed by staff as follows: • New development should support the cost of its infrastructure. She asked :hat this also take into consideration certain improvements that relate to but might not be immediately within the EPSP area (sections around and between Valley, Stanley and El Charro and bicycle/pedestrian trail connections); • El Charro Road should be connected to Stanley, preferably not phased in the same manner as the Stoneridge Drive extension; • It is premature to make any decision on whether to put an amendment to the Urban Growth Boundary before the voters without knowing what that amendment might be; City Council Minutes Page 9 of 13 June 18, 2013