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
• The next two RHNA cycle requirements should be dispersed throughout the City in a balanced <br /> way; <br /> • She would like, as is consistent with past practice, to see density greater at the center and <br /> feathered out to the edges of the plan area; <br /> She said she found 6 to be too many alternatives, especially accounting for all the variables. She said <br /> she preferred the unit and density mixture in Alternative 1 but said she could also consider Alternative <br /> 4, which also has a 1:1 ratio of single to multi-family units. She said would like any alternative that <br /> moves forward to give greater consideration to the Urban Growth Boundary, locate the school site on <br /> the west side and minimize the total number of units while still respecting balance throughout the city. <br /> Councilmember Narum responded to the questions posed by staff as follows: <br /> • She agreed with fellow Council regarding the cost of infrastructure and support for the extension <br /> of El Charro Road,without phasing; <br /> • She supported consideration of development beyond the Urban Growth Boundary but felt any <br /> decision on the need for a vote of the public to be premature; <br /> • Having gone full circle on the matter, she was inclined to leave the OSC at its current location <br /> with some aesthetic enhancements. Relocation of PGS warranted more discussion; <br /> • A school site, preferably west of El Charm and in conjunction with a public park, should be <br /> included; <br /> • Busch Road and Boulder Street should connect through to El Charm; <br /> • RHNA accommodations should be dispersed throughout the city, with no more than 50%of the <br /> City's total inventory located on the east side; <br /> • Curvilinear streets sound nice but any decision is likely premature; <br /> • Single versus multi-family unit mixture should not exceed 50%on the multi-family side; <br /> • Lacking a central point,development should be evenly dispersed throughout the plan area; <br /> With regards to density, she noted the 300 unit development at the corner of Bernal and Stanley which, <br /> while not specifically in the EPSP area, does have an impact.She said she would eliminate Alternatives <br /> 2 and 3 and, while certainly not advocating for it, Alternative 6 should be included as a project <br /> alternative to balance the'no project' alternative. She referred to several emails received that day that <br /> proposed the plan area accommodate 30%of upcoming RHNA allocations,with 60%single-family/40% <br /> multi-family ratio and a total of 1,500 units and said she would like to see this evaluated further. <br /> Mayor Thorne responded to the questions posed by staff as follows: <br /> • He agreed with fellow Council regarding the cost of infrastructure and support for the extension <br /> of El Charro Road,without phasing; <br /> • He agreed that any decision regarding the Urban Growth Boundary would be premature at this <br /> time and stressed that he had no intentions of ignoring the provisions of Measure FF; <br /> • He also agreed that the OSC would be cost prohibitive to move but did feel it required certain <br /> mitigations to remain in a residential location; <br /> • A public school site must be considered, though he expressed concern about the district's ability <br /> to finance it; <br /> • He supported the extension of Busch Road and Boulder Street as well as any circulation efforts <br /> that alleviate the traffic generated by new development on this side of town; <br /> • He agreed that the plan area should not be overburdened with the majority of RHNA <br /> accommodation. He asked staff to divide the community into four quadrants,assess the existing <br /> balance and future opportunities throughout town; <br /> • It is too early to comment on curvilinear street design; <br /> • Single and multi-family units should be evenly mixed; <br /> • Density should be feathered outward <br /> With regards to alternatives, he questioned the viability of 1 and 2 in terms of supporting infrastructure. <br /> He felt 4, 5 and 6 were perhaps the most viable, with 6 being included as a worst case scenario for the <br /> City Counol Minutes Pegs 12 of 13 June 18,2013 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.