CCMIN030414 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Stern resumed her presentation, discussing the particular implications of the current RHNA obligation on east Pleasanton. As most are aware, the city has been working to prepare a comprehensive plan for the future reuse of the east Pleasanton area. The plan area is comprised of approximately 1,100 acres, 400 of which are potentially developable. The East Pleasanton Specific Plan is called for in the General Plan and the General Plan Land Use Map describes several land uses that should be included. These include public and institutional, high-density residential, business parks, retail, office and industrial, open space/parks, and water management habitat and recreation for the lake areas which act as community separators on the east edge of Pleasanton. In addition to the desire to plan this area with infrastructure and amenities that are complimentary to the rest of Pleasanton, the east side was also viewed as the location for the city's future housing needs. More recent information regarding other avenues to satisfy these obligations does have some implications on east Pleasanton planning and staff is asking the Council to provide direction on one of three options. Option 1 includes completion of the Specific Plan process, which would involve completion of the draft Environmental Impact Report and preliminary plan, continued public meetings and final action by the task force, and then final action by the Council towards the end of this calendar year. Regardless of the plan recommendations, annual build out would be limited by the Growth Management Ordinance to 238 units citywide on an annual basis with exception of the more recent multi-family project approvals that are allowed to move forward independent of growth management restrictions. Option 2 calls for completion of the Specific Plan process, with inclusion of a phasing plan to prioritize the development and infrastructure of certain areas while retaining others for future RHNA needs. Option 3 would be to postpone completion of the Specific Plan until a time closer to the 2022-2030 RHNA planning period. This would involve stopping work on the current plan and in approximately eight years embarking on a similar exercise to determine whether or not additional sites are needed and if they should be located in east Pleasanton. Councilmember Cook-Kallio suggested that growth management is a degree of phasing in and of itself. Mr. Dolan agreed that any plan would be subject to the limitations of the Growth Management Ordinance but noted that under certain scenarios it would be possible to build out a sizable portion of the plan area in those annual allocations. If the Council were to pursue Option 1 it may still want to ensure that the plan includes some reservation of higher density sites for the next planning period. Councilmember Cook-Kallio asked how much of the EIR and related studies would have to be repeated if the Council selected Option 3 versus Option 1 or 2, but with no development occurring for seven to eight years. Mr. Dolan said it would essentially require a new EIR effort and estimated that over 75% would have to be revisited, perhaps more depending on changes to the California Environmental Quality Act. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said the issue of El Charro Road is particularly important to her and asked whether stopping this process would put that project at risk if funds were to become available at the state or county level. Mr. Dolan explained that while the extension of El Charro is discussed in the General Plan, it is clearly easier to demonstrate its need in association with a Specific Plan. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she thought one issue the community has with this sort of process is the expectation of rapid development and build out. She asked how long it generally takes to reach build out of a Specific Plan area. City Council Minutes Page 5 of 12 March 4, 2014