My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN101513
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
CCMIN101513
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/7/2013 1:11:38 PM
Creation date
11/7/2013 1:11:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/15/2013
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
Mr. Dolan said he could not recall the Commission's first vote but in its recommendation, the <br /> Commission indicated support for the task force's preferred plan if Alternative 8 were included as an <br /> option. <br /> Councilmember Pentin asked and Mr. Dolan confirmed that the intent behind shifting the El Charro <br /> extension in Alternative 1 is to connect to Shadow Cliffs. Mr. Dolan explained that the idea originated <br /> from the thought that the existing railroad facilities along that stretch might decrease the cost to extend <br /> the road. While that may not turn out to be true, it has been included as an option to retain the flexibility <br /> later. <br /> Mr. Dolan spoke to earlier comments relative to property under the ownership of Zone 7. He explained <br /> that while the task force and various commissions have provided input as to what they would like with <br /> regards to this property, staff has yet to determine whether this would be possible. What is clear is that <br /> there are a number of challenges and compatibility concerns that will require further exploration and <br /> negotiation before anything is resolved. <br /> Mr. Dolan presented a slide summarizing proposed densities and unit mixes for each alternative as well <br /> as a slide demonstrating the city's position relative to its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) <br /> obligations. He noted that similar RHNA tables have been provided in several staff reports over the last <br /> several months and that the values do vary somewhat with each iteration. He explained that this is the <br /> result of some last minute changes in the city's RHNA allocations as well as some changes in the <br /> assumptions used to estimate future inventory. In summary, staff expects the city has sufficient <br /> inventory to meet its obligations for low and very low income households in the 2014-2022 planning <br /> period. However, the city has outstanding obligations of 407 moderate income units and 344 above <br /> moderate income units. While the plan area could easily accommodate these 751 units, the Council <br /> decided early in the planning process to try and plan for at least two RHNA cycles. One of the more <br /> challenging aspects of this approach is that the actual assignment for the next RHNA cycle will remain <br /> unknown for some time. Staff has projected an outstanding obligation that is identical to the total <br /> obligation in the preceding cycle. In preparing this projection, staff acknowledged that the total <br /> obligation is likely to increase but feels that a conservative assumption that no inventory will be <br /> available to carry over into this cycle would balance out any increase. <br /> He presented a slide demonstrating how the various alternatives compare to RHNA demands, both <br /> known and projected. He explained that most alternatives, which exception of Alternative 1, would likely <br /> satisfy obligations in the above moderate income category for both cycles but fall short in the more <br /> difficult low, very low and moderate income categories. Despite Council direction to include up to 50/50 <br /> unit mix, the task force ultimately decided it was only interested in a 65/35 split, which best mimics the <br /> feels through the rest of town. While understandable and logical, this does mean that approximately <br /> 60% of the low, very low and moderate obligations would have to be located somewhere else in town. <br /> This was a difficult exercise with these latest rezonings and will be even more so in the future. <br /> Mr. Dolan summarized the staff recommendation. The Council is being asked to authorize staff to <br /> proceed with evaluation of the proposed EIR alternatives. He noted that there are more alternatives <br /> than were originally budgeted, which will require that staff come back with a budget amendment for the <br /> EIR once the additional cost is determined. Staff will also be returning with a budget amendment for the <br /> planning effort related to the detailed feasibility analysis. <br /> Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio referred to Mr. Rasmussen's comment that 8 units per acre provides the <br /> greatest land value. She asked if, staying within the overall structure, there is an opportunity to relocate <br /> certain densities in an attempt to maximize the value of certain sites to pay for infrastructure. <br /> Mr. Dolan confirmed, though cautioned that some higher densities are needed to accommodate RHNA <br /> and to achieve dynamic land use. <br /> Mayor Thorne asked who is responsible for the cost of studying additional alternatives. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 7 of 13 October 15, 2013 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.