PC 111313 - Laserfiche WebLink

"We plan to submit details of our questions by the deadline and will only summarize key questions we are interested in having the EIR evaluate. "a. We are not happy with the 1, 759 number being pushed as the Preferred Plan. First, this unnecessarily burdens the East Pleasanton area with the higher density building and with the environmental impact. Second, the Preferred Plan is being driven by the infrastructure costs and by satisfying the RHNA numbers through 2030 rather than through 2024. Third, the scenarios being evaluated only assume worst -case assumptions and we feel that is not correct to only evaluate this assumption. We request that the EIR also evaluate best case and moderate case scenarios. WE also feel that the process used to obtain a vote on the Preferred Plan did not involve a vote of all individuals on the Task Force commission but was done by consensus with several members not in attendance due to last- minute change in meeting date. "b. We are very concerned that the proposed size of this project is enormous for the East Pleasanton area and will have a dramatic effect on the environment of East Pleasanton and all of Pleasanton. Pleasanton has a unique character and the environmental impact on noise, pollution, traffic, infrastructure requirements, etc., is enormous. We need to have a clear and unbiased understanding of the environmental impact of the proposed projects. Bottom line, we are concerned that this will not maintain Pleasanton as the Pleasanton we all love and we want to make sure we maintain our small -town feel. If development is to occur, we want to make sure that any build out is in character with the current Pleasanton culture. Key concerns: "a. Examples of question we have concerning traffic and the effect of traffic on the character of Pleasanton, including, for example: "i. Updated and more accurate and current traffic counts be obtained and used in this report. Specifically, the Traffic Analysis of October 2012 should not be used as it is outdated. (For example, Stoneridge Drive opening and the Paragon Outlet opening and Auf der Maur development.) "Y. The analysis should include the impact of the surrounding City build out including the Livermore build out. (Project should bear all of its burdens — need to include infrastructure costs and impact of other development on this cost.) "iii. Impact of moving the Urban Growth Boundary going to a vote. `iv. Given that many of us will be considering the need for senior housing in the near future, the traffic report should consider the effect of including senior housing as a mitigation factor to reduce traffic. "v. Effect on safety of increased pedestrian traffic with increased automobile traffic. "vi. Analyze effect not completing the El Charro extension as well as analyze not completing El Charro south of Stoneridge. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 13, 2013 Page 8 of 50