11 ATTACHMENTS 08-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Maria Hoey Subject: About East Pleasanton Specific Plan Original Message From: dong jin Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 9:53 AM To: Janice Stern Subject: About East Pleasanton Specific Plan Dear Ms. Stern, Honorable City Planning Committee Members and City Council Members: We are residents of Ironwood Community of Pleasanton and we are writing to express our concerns regarding the selected "Preferred Plan" for the East Pleasanton Specific Plan that has resulted from the work of the EPSP Task Force. Like you, we moved to Pleasanton because of well-planned community and good schools. The current City composition is about 75% single family housing and owner occupied. We would like to see future development in Pleasanton continue in this way. We are concerned that East Pleasanton is being asked to take more than its "fair share" of the mandated RHNA numbers and multi-family housing. We understand that the reason often given for this is that it's an open space and it will be easier to get approvals without neighbors nearby. We are speaking up as the neighbors nearby. We will be significantly impacted by any development in the EPSP area. Our roads and schools will also be significantly impacted. Here are a few key concerns from residents of our community for your consideration: (1) In the previous financial feasibility studies, former option 5 (1430 total units with 715/715 SF/MF units) was deemed marginally feasible, and option 7 (1759 total units with 878/881 SF/MF units) was considered feasible. Among all different type of units, SF with 8-11 d/a are most profitable. Based on this analysis, one does not need as high total units to be feasible when the percentage of SF to MF is higher (like 65% vs. 50% SF). We would like the Planning Commission and City Council to reduce the total units to a number closer to 1430 as originally conceived (with 65% SF=930 and 35% MF=500 units), which will provide more single family units than both former option 5 and 7, and still make a project financially feasible. (2) We are concerned about traffic! The traffic layout should be designed so Busch is not the primary collector carrying most of the vehicle volume as it connects to Valley. The East Pleasanton internal street network should distribute and disperse traffic to provide less impact to Valley which is congested at commute hour, and which is one of the most heavily traveled streets in the city. (3) We feel the expansion of El Charro will benefit the entire community, not just East Pleasanton. In fact, it will bring more travel options to the entire Valley, including vehicles coming from Livermore down Stanley Blvd. We believe other funding sources than just East Pleasanton development should be used to pay for it. This would then allow the total number of units in East Pleasanton to be reduced since infrastructure costs will be reduced. (4) While we appreciate the efforts of the Task Force, Planning Commission and City Council to do its best to preserve at least a 65/35% ratio single family to multi-family housing, we are still extremely concerned with the total units of 1759 reflected in the Preferred Plan. "The Preferred Plan (Alternative 5C) would accommodate approximately 62 percent of the total estimated housing need, and about 51 percent of the multifamily housing need over that period (2014-2030)" 1