My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2013
>
101513
>
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
>
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/15/2013 4:06:56 PM
Creation date
10/15/2013 12:01:16 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.
/
16
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
housing units should be transit-oriented with easy access to mass-transit systems. <br /> East Pleasanton does not meet this criteria, thus questioning over 1700 housing units <br /> and the intensity of development envisioned by the preferred plan. <br /> -- We ask the city to consider the Auf De Mar site when planning for the EPSP. <br /> (4) We ask City Council members to continue the City's program of controlled and <br /> balanced growth so that East Pleasanton will not be flooded with an inordinate amount of <br /> new houses over a short period time. In order to meet the expected infrastructure costs, <br /> developers will be seeking a glut of housing approvals right up front. Again, what other <br /> options can reduce the infrastructure costs that are driving the developers/land owners to <br /> increase the number of housing units? <br /> (5) We would like to see an option where the Operations Service Center (OSC) is moved so <br /> the new development can be better blended with existing homes. <br /> (6) We hope that as our elected representatives, you will continue to fight to maintain local <br /> control in our City planning. We desire a pushback on RHNA and The Association of Bay <br /> Area Governments (ABAG) and its One Bay Area decentralized planning. We don't want <br /> Pleasanton planned by planners in Oakland! <br /> We ask that land is not rezoned for housing until it is required (Do not rezone the planned <br /> 2022-2030 land at this time). At some point ABAG/RHNA may be deemed invalid as a <br /> result of lawsuits? <br /> (7) Moving forward we are requesting to have a group of our residents meet individually <br /> with the City Council members to further discuss how we can decrease the impacts <br /> this will have on our community (such as decreasing infrastructure costs, other sites in <br /> Pleasanton to satisfy RHNA numbers, proposing a Bond, ...) <br /> (8) Impact on schools. Although the future of schools are being management by <br /> Pleasanton Unified School District (PUSD), city council could have a big say on the impact <br /> by controlling the growth of our City, studying every new development being proposed, <br /> and determining the impact on our schools and quality of education. We have a concern <br /> that the current council pushing for jobs could result in even higher housing unit <br /> requirements in our already over-impacted city (note the recent article on Pleasanton <br /> Weekly indicating more jobs would mean additional housing requirement). If more jobs <br /> results in increased RHNA requirements, how do you balance the increase in revenue from <br /> these jobs to the decrease in property tax revenues as the Pleasanton housing loses equity if <br /> the new housing is not managed correctly? <br /> We appreciate your consideration of the above issues. Your actions and vision are essential <br /> to keep our Pleasanton beautiful so that our next generations will all be proud of!! <br /> Thank you and sincerely yours, <br /> Carol and Sidney Cohen <br /> October 15, 2013 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.