My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11 ATTACHMENTS 02-04
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2013
>
101513
>
11 ATTACHMENTS 02-04
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/9/2013 4:21:34 PM
Creation date
10/9/2013 4:21:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
10/15/2013
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• He supported curvilinear street design; <br /> • He could envision and in fact would prefer the OSC to remain in Its current location but feels <br /> than any alternative should address the relocation of PGS; <br /> • He favored higher density development to be grouped around a community center <br /> With regards to RHNA and its allocation throughout the City, he said that the laneuit, Hacienda TOD <br /> process and recent Housing Element certification served to identify and rezone 70 acres for high <br /> density development. He agreed that this plan should not be RHNA driven but also noted that none of <br /> the high density zoning to date has occurred on the east side. He referred to Ms. Dennis'comments, <br /> which beg the question of whether the City is attempting to meet its low and very-low income housing <br /> needs with this plan. He encouraged everyone to focus on market rate and affordability in terms of <br /> workforce housing and what it means in Pleasanton, rather than any preconceived notions of the <br /> targeted demographic. <br /> With regards to alternatives, he agreed that it is important to ensure that the City does not shortchange <br /> itself throughout the process. He therefore supported further analysis of Alternat ve 6 as a worst case <br /> scenario,noting that they would retain the ability to scale it back to an appropriate fit for the community. <br /> Councilmember Brown agreed that development should bear the cost o` infrastructure. She <br /> acknowledged that the extension of El Charro Road is a part of the City's circulation plan but said she <br /> was put off by estimates that it would run $70-90 million just to access El Charm and then an additional <br /> amount to go under ce over the railroad tracks. <br /> Mr. Dolan clarified that the overall infrastructure cost is estimated at $60 million, which includes El <br /> Charro,the under crossing and the extension. <br /> Councilmember Brown said that was more acceptable but even assuming 1,200 housing units, the <br /> project would run an incredible $50,000 per unit. She said she conducted significant research on <br /> development relative to the Urban Growth Boundary, both with the General Plan and Measure FF. She <br /> read from the General Plan where it speaks to exemptions for land and gravel in east Pleasanton, but <br /> noted that this is only for non-urban development. <br /> Mr. Dolan stressed that staff is not advocating for any one particular methodology but clarified that a <br /> more careful read of that language provides for two programs. One discusses the circumstances under <br /> which urban services can be extended beyond the boundary and the other discusses under what <br /> circumstances the Council may move the boundary and that is where it references major versus minor. <br /> Councilmember Brown asked if staff feels 100 acres is a minor change. <br /> Mr. Dolan said it is a decision for the Council, not staff. <br /> Councilmember Brown respectfully disagreed and said when she voted for Measure FF in 1996, she <br /> did understand it to mean the boundary could be moved to encompass either Cope Lake or the land <br /> below. <br /> She responded to the remaining questions posed by staff as follows: <br /> • She would prefer the OSC to remain at its current location. She also worried about the expense <br /> of relocating PGS and suggested there might be some creative mitigation efforts to improve the <br /> surrounding area. She also suggested they look at creative circulation adjustments, perhaps <br /> with access to PGS off of Busch or Boulder; <br /> • A public school site,which she envisioned being land gifted for use as both a park and school, <br /> should be included; <br /> • She supported curvilinear street design; <br /> city Council Minutes Pegs 11 of 13 June 18,2013 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.