SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

commute hours, and which is already one of the most heavily traveled streets in the city. While we are happy to see Boulder Street extended, this will not address the traffic on Valley Ave as cars coming off Busch & Boulder will further contribute and exacerbate the traffic jams on Valley Avenue. Please be reminded that when Ironwood Development was in its planning stages, it was determined that the addition of—180 new housing units would be an unacceptable and major impact to the residents by Mohr Avenue. This resulted in a barrier being located between the Ironwood Classis and Estates housing units. If 180 new housing units were identified as causing a major traffic impact to the Mohr Ave community, it's difficult to imagine the impact of 1750+ units. Other than a major impact on Valley Avenue, other areas of Pleasanton will also be severely impacted such as Santa Rita & First Street. One specific option for reducing traffic would be to allocate Senior Housing. (3) 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, as well as the balance of RHNA allocations across the city. Specifically: -- Build in Phases: Although we understand the feasibility to include 2 RHNA cycles in this plan, we request calling out that 2022-2030 RHNA allocations are `not' pulled back into 2014-2022. For example, the latest numbers for 2014-2022 (after accounting for carryover) arc: Very-Low/Low/Moderate Above Moderate 325 344 This is total of 669 units. If allocate this requirement `fairly' across Pleasanton, allocating—25%, this leaves 167 `total units' which will need to be built in East Pleasanton between 2014-2022. This should not require large infrastructure costs. We request the city to break out the two RHNA cycles to guarantee 2022-2030 RHNA allocations are not pulled back into 2014-2022. Let's slow down some and wait for the next RHNA cycle to begin building and approving for that cycle. -- Balance of IZO— Maintain 15% IZO(including subsidized/section 8 housing). We are concerned that some recent High Density housing projects have been provided the opportunity to pay fee-in-lieu, and eventually the housing built in East Pleasanton will be required to take on higher IZO requirements (ie. it is not fair for other parts of the city to have 10-20% IZO, and East Pleasanton to have 30-100% IZO). -- What would be required for the City to bring the EPSP Proposal forward as city-wide vote on this high amount of planned housing, for example, putting it on a Ballot? -- Our understanding is one of the main themes for RHNA satisfaction was that the housing units should be transit-oriented with easy access to mass-transit systems. East Pleasanton does not meet this criteria, thus questioning over 1700 housing units and the intensity of development envisioned by the preferred plan. -- We ask the city to consider the Auf De Mar site when planning for the EPSP. (4) We ask City Council members to continue the City's program of controlled and balanced growth so that East Pleasanton will not be flooded with an inordinate amount of new houses over a short period time. In order to meet the expected infrastructure costs, developers will be seeking a glut of housing approvals right up front. Again, what other options can reduce the infrastructure costs that are driving the developers/land owners to increase the number of housing units? 2