My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2015
>
061615
>
01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/18/2015 11:50:46 AM
Creation date
6/9/2015 3:53:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
6/16/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
1
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
• Traffic <br /> The public expressed concerns that the extension of El Charro Road would result in additional <br /> cut through traffic, the potential impacts of the project on First Street which is already at <br /> capacity, and increased congestion at the Sunol Boulevard onramps. Some individuals <br /> expressed the belief that the plan itself is flawed because it is contingent upon extending El <br /> Charro Road. <br /> • Housing <br /> Some citizens suggested that the planning of East Pleasanton prior to the next round of <br /> Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers was premature. Others felt that the <br /> plan should include multi-family housing opportunities to help meet the RHNA obligation, that <br /> the Urban Growth Boundary should be honored or that the plan should be buffered from <br /> surrounding development. <br /> • Environmental Impact Report <br /> Concerns were expressed about the identified impacts related to construction period air quality <br /> and noise impacts that primarily occur as a result of traffic generated by the project. Some <br /> individuals felt that if the Council decided to pause or halt the planning process, the EIR process <br /> should stop as well. <br /> • General <br /> Additional concerns expressed by the public debated the benefit of the plan or that the addition <br /> of more residents in and of itself would diminish the quality of life of the community. Others <br /> questioned whether developers stood to profit too much from the project, expressed concerns <br /> related to locating the school and planned trails adjacent to quarry activities, or suggested that <br /> the traffic analysis and/or demographic studies could have been manipulated. <br /> Mr. Dolan stated that staff prepared the following options as starting points for the Council's <br /> consideration. Additionally, the applicants have prepared another option in resolution form. <br /> • Option 1 <br /> Continue the planning process and preparation of the EIR, maintaining the current course. This <br /> option would complete a long-standing program of the General Plan, provide for an extension of <br /> El Charro Road as contemplated in the General Plan and at no expense to the city, create a <br /> new neighborhood with high amenities and a variety of housing choices, provide for new <br /> outdoor recreational amenities, provide additional economic development opportunities and a <br /> sizable financial contribution to the city's Recycled Water Program, capitalize on several years <br /> of hard work by the task force, and improve the city's jobs to housing balance. However, this <br /> option would also potentially increase traffic and the demand for water and schools and could <br /> result in the construction of residential units in advance of new RHNA requirements, which <br /> would preclude that land from being used in the next RHNA cycle. The Base Plan as envisioned <br /> also does not provide for any high-density zoning that could be reserved to meet the next round <br /> of RHNA requirements. Finally, the vast majority of the neighborhood meeting attendees are <br /> opposed to the plan. <br /> • Option 2a <br /> Pause the planning process but proceed with certification of the EIR. Completion of the EIR <br /> reaches a certain logistical milestone that would be more efficient and convenient should the <br /> City Council Minutes Page 4 of 15 May 19,2015 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.