CCMIN011706 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Thorne referred to PUD consideration nine as reflected on page 14 of the staff report, which states: "with the ongoing General Plan Update, sufficient additional, adequate, and available alternative sites are being identified to keep the City's overall number of housing units consistent with the Housing Element and regional housing need allocation," and asked staff for an explanation. Mr. Iserson said this finding was added by the Planning Commission because the Housing Element is showing more units on this site than is being proposed. State law requires that if that number of units is not actually built on this property, they must be built elsewhere. The actual General Plan mid-point for this site is 18-units, whereas only 11 units are proposed. The Planning Commission recommended that the finding should be made there are other adequate sites in the City that are available to absorb those seven other units so as not to cause a conflict with the General Plan Housing Element. Mr. Thorne asked if the Circulation Element remained open in the General Plan Update process? Mr. Iserson said yes. He reminded Council that it tentatively selected a Draft Circulation Element that included a number of street projects for future improvements. Even though the Rose Avenue extension remained on the list, staff did understand from the comments made at the General Plan Update workshops that there was a consensus, if not the unanimous agreement of Council, that it would like to see the Rose Avenue extension be deleted from the General Plan. Mr. Thorne pointed out there was a statement in the staff report that mentioned that the possible extension of Rose Avenue was still open; he believed Council had closed that door. Mr. Iserson said the possible extension of Rose Avenue is not completely shut, but staff heard Council's direction. However, amending the General Plan to delete the Rose Avenue extension has not yet occurred. Mr. Sullivan noted there was discussion regarding an emergency vehicle access (EVA) in that location and assuming that Rose Avenue is not extended (a position he supports), ultimately some type of EVA should go to Valley Avenue through the Fairgrounds property. Mr. lserson said staff was uncertain about the EVA but the Alameda County Fairgrounds Board is not in support of a full Rose Avenue extension, which would require cutting through major sections of the Fairgrounds. With the development of the Alteri property to the west, this issue will surface and staff will continue to work with the Fairgrounds Board to see if there is any possibility of getting an EVA, which is desirous from the City's point of view because it would extend the water and sewer lines out to Valley Avenue. At one time he believed Alameda County seemed to be in support of at least allowing the extension of the City's water and sewer lines to Valley Avenue. For the benefit of the public, Mr. Sullivan pointed out that an EVA would be closed to public traffic but would provide access for emergency vehicles only. Mr. Sullivan mentioned the November 1, 2005 Planning Commission minutes referenced the possibility of a bridge across the Arroyo and asked for staff's insight on the matter. Pleasanton City Council Minutes 5 01/17/06