SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

r r, MATERIAL From: Matt Sullivan city CUUIICII Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:52 AM rte! [ !rih�;tion of PaCknet To: Mayor and City Council Cc: Nelson t S Jonathan Lowell Subj ect: East Sid e Pl an an d EIR j / ;i l3 Mayor and Council, I would like to offer an additional alternative to be evaluated with the East Side EIR that is on your agenda tonight. The Staff Report recommendations provide a very limited range of options for consideration: all alternatives are in excess of 1000 new residential units, and four out of five are roughly 1500 or more. All the alternatives anticipate that full build out of infrastructure take place immediately— including the very costly El Charro extension and railroad underpass. These alternatives all represent "maximum growth" scenarios, and no true phased or slower-growth scenario is being considered. As you know, after the loss of our Housing Cap, the previous Council adopted policies and a Growth Management Ordinance that essentially put a floating "RHNA Housing Cap" in place to prevent runaway development. While Item 12 on your agenda tonight hints at a future change to this policy, it is still city policy. As such, the Preferred Plan SHOULD be one that phases approvals that tracks future RHNA allocations. Since our estimated additional unit allocation through 2022 is 751 units, approving a plan with 1759 as recommended is clearly in conflict with our growth management policies, and I believe, in conflict with what most of Pleasanton would like to see. Staff has "backed-in" to the 1759 unit plan by estimating the infrastructure costs for an arbitrary full build-out scenario (essentially a scenario acceptable by the property owners and developers) and approving enough development to pay for that infrastructure. This is backward. The city—and the citizens—need to decide what level of development is appropriate for the site and then evaluate what infrastructure is necessary and how it will be funded. Since the citizens I have talked to who were on the East Side Committee are opposed to the level of development in the current Preferred Plan, my conclusion is that this is really the "Developer's Preferred Plan". I urge you to add a phased, RHNA-tracking scenario to be evaluated with the EIR. If phased properly, the infrastructure could also be funded and constructed in the same phased manner. We need a better understanding of the traffic impacts of this development as well as the cut-through traffic effects of extending El Charro in the "full build out" as well as phased scenario. In addition, as a reminder, you also need to review a No-Project scenario to comply with CEQA. Staff's proposal flies in the face of over 20 years of slow growth policy in Pleasanton. This, combined with your recent action to abolish what was essentially a"traffic cap" on development in Hacienda, the hinted changes to the Growth Management Ordinance, and your attempts to undermine Measure PP, sends a clear signal that the new Council is poised to kick the doors open for fast-track development. I sense referendum in the air. Thank you Matt Sullivan Former City Councilmember Former Planning Commissioner