SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

After attending the March 6th EPSP task force meeting, we are even more concerned and disillusioned by our elected and appointed city officials as the EPSP taskforce proceeded without any major modification to their `preferred plan". The City Staff interpreted the motion by City Council as a vote of confidence to proceed. It seems to us that this green light to proceed with business as usual holds no one responsible or accountable for the fact that RHNA needs were officially determined after the submission of EIR and not before. Current inventory in Pleasanton not only satisfies the 2014-2022 RHNA requirements but shows a surplus of 1245 units. Why would the city of Pleasanton want to go forward with such massive building before 2022? It is now time that City Council act responsibly to its citizens. Now that we no longer have the huge RHNA constraints,we request that City Council be specific on what modification and guidelines to include in the plans for the EIR studies. 1. Why is the option of 1759 units (616 Multifamily [MF] units) still the preferred plan when we have 1245 surplus in RHNA for the next cycle? 2. Why do we need 3 different plans for the 1759 unit option(5A, 5B, 5C)? We only need to keep 1 option with 35% or preferably less MF units. 3. Why not include options with lower total units such as 500 or 750 units with the majority being Single Family [SF] units? 4. Change current Option 1 with 1000 units (500/500 SF/MF)to a different SF/MF ratio such as 750/250. 5. Since development types and quantities are in part determined by infrastructure costs, why not consider options that minimize these infrastructure costs such as: Reduce the need to build new schools, extend El Charro Road in phases to match development needs, or construct El Charro road as a 2-lane road instead of 4-lanes? 6. Why not use more of this site for parks, biking and walking trails? During March 4th city council meeting, all City councilmembers talked about great planning is essential for a great future for Pleasanton. We request that City Council act NOW to give the taskforce instructions to reconsider the options for EIR studies as suggested above; otherwise, the study will be meaningless as it does not have the right options included and the present preferred plan is based on obsolete assumptions. Our request is based on the fact that the two major factors that drove the EPSP planning have changed: (1) RHNA#s for the next two cycles and (2) infrastructure costs. We are respectfully asking task force members and the city staff, to reassess housing options (SF vs MF) without the RHNA numbers constraints. During the March 6th EPSP taskforce meeting, several members of the task force brought up the motion to include new plans with lower# of total units, reduce/eliminate the 30 acres/units (hence reduce total units), change the "preferred plan"to one of the lower total units options, but they were pushed back by the city staff because (a) City council passed a motion to continue the EPSP planning and did not pass the motion to change the options, and (b)the total infrastructure cost can only be supported by high#of total units. In summary, we all have serious concerns that the current EPSP taskforce team is proceeding without 2