Laserfiche WebLink
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL <br /> Provided to the City Council <br /> Pleasanton City Council Meeting September 17, 2013 After Distribution of Packet <br /> Date /�/IC�r�C G- -L ._. <br /> Mayor Thorne, Council Members and Staff, 9—/7--/3 6i��L4, <br /> As many of you know, the citizens of Pleasanton lost their housing cap of 29,000 units in <br /> the past few years as the result of a lawsuit. Another outcome from that lawsuit was the <br /> rezoning of land throughout the city, including Hacienda properties, resulting in the <br /> addition of some 2,100 high density housing units. With that rezoning, the city will now <br /> surpass the 29,000 unit target when those homes are added to the existing housing units <br /> plus the "approved/not built" units. <br /> The citizens of Pleasanton would still prefer to have their 29,000 housing cap. Now that <br /> we are exceeding the 29,000 units, they would certainly prefer to build as few more <br /> homes as possible. <br /> Restoring some 930,000 square feet of Hacienda commercial space after the rezoning for <br /> the high density housing there will only add to the pressure by RHNA to require even <br /> more housing units. And all of this precedes the final commercial allocation in the East <br /> Side Specific Plan and other commercial infill projects, such as the one recently <br /> completed by Clorox and another anticipated by Workday. <br /> The 930,000 sq. ft. restored for Hacienda represents 5,283 jobs (929,830/176 sgft/job), or <br /> 3,522 housing units (5,283/1.5 jobs/house). These units represent the potential reduction <br /> in future RHNA units due to any future zoning or rezoning of commercial property as <br /> well as general increases across the Bay Area based on demand. It was unfortunate that <br /> this data was not available at the August 28, 2013 Planning Commission meeting for the <br /> commissioners to consider before passing a recommendation to the City Council. <br /> I am not aware of any pressing reason to require a decision tonight. With such a <br /> significant impact on our housing requirements, I would recommend that the Council <br /> continue this item and send it back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration based <br /> on this new information. It is very important that the Council understand all aspects of <br /> this item, including revenues, costs and RHNA numbers, before making an informed <br /> decision. If a decision is to be made tonight, I recommend DENIAL. <br /> Thank you, <br /> Greg O'Connor <br />