SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

UPPLEMEi�T�4L flRABERIAL Provided to the City Council December 16, 2014 After Distribution of Packet Date /`-_ /i_� Dear Mayor and City Council members, We're from one of the communities in the east side of Pleasanton, and we are the ones whom will be most impacted by the development plan that's been considered. Some of our community members have been attending the city council and task force meetings on our behalf,but some of our concerns have NOT been addressed adequately at those meetings. We want to restate our concerns (old and new), and we hope that our elected officials will take our concerns seriously as the well-being of the Pleasanton residents and the future of our generations must supersede any profit gains by some developers or individuals. Following are some of the concerns that we have brought up before (petition signed by a majority of the ironwood residents) and have not been addressed so far, in addition to some new concerns: 1) We understand that multiple options are still being considered, but we are concerned the base plan is still higher than original numbers when this all started. 1300 is a large number. Why was it presented as if 1300 is not a big deal, especially when considering the additional 345 Auf De Mar units nearby, and the remaining—1400 units from the already approved city-wide units? 2) Why was there push back and hesitation in adding specific wording about the fact that number of units is driven by infrastructure cost? The local community is NOT demanding 1300 units. The fact is that this number is calculated to satisfy infrastructure costs. If the task forces assume that everyone knows about this, why not include a clear statement on what's biggest factor for the most important aspect of the project. We appreciate the city trying to limit the number of units, but our opinion is the final number of units should be driven by least impact on the residents. If 1300 is the minimum to satisfy the infrastructure costs (which is higher than what's fair to the residents), then no units should be built. We want to know the reason behind what is driving all this building. From what we can remember, most of the residents voted on a housing cap years back, which was overturned by the state, which triggered the RHNA allocations. The city has satisfied the requirement of RHNA up to the year 2022, then why is the city going forward to approve more housing units before then? A previous working draft of the EPSP indicated building would start 2016/2017."? 3) If we all understand that the main driving force is the infrastructure cost, we urge city council member make sure that the task force do its due diligence in means/options to lower the infrastructure cost hence the total number of units, for example, how would the pass of measure BB affect the public funding for the extension of El Charro Road? 4) We understand that 10 options would be submitted for EIR studies, and we urge the city council members to request a thorough impact study of the traffic and schools for people across the city, not just during the PM peak hour but also morning rush hours, which has