|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Pleasanton City Council held a joint workshop Tuesday afternoon with the city’s Planning Commission where members of each one provided high-level feedback on the overall approach staff is taking on planning for the future of East Pleasanton.
During the Sept. 16 meeting, members of the council and the commission discussed several key policy questions that staff said will help the city shape the east side into what will be best for the community as staff work through developing the East Pleasanton Policy Framework.
However, no formal action was taken as Tuesday night’s meeting. It was just the beginning of many future sessions and hearings both governing bodies will undertake before approving any framework regarding the future of that area of Pleasanton, which has been up in the air for more than a decade.
“It’s a tall order, for sure, but it’s also Pleasanton’s opportunity (to regain control),” Pleasanton Mayor Jack Balch said. “We chose to stay back and now the county has to move forward, so we have to take our future in our hands again and move forward.”
Discussions surrounding the east side’s future date back to 2012 when the city first embarked on developing an East Pleasanton Specific Plan.
By 2014, the city drafted a specific plan and published an environmental impact report, each of which provided detailed policies regarding land use, urban design, transportation, environmental protections and public infrastructure in east Pleasanton.
The following year, the city paused work on the specific plan before resuming in 2019. But it was only a matter of time before the 2020 pandemic halted that work once again — the east side specific plan was ultimately never adopted.
Then, during the Feb. 4 council meeting this year, the council directed staff to begin a new process — the East Pleasanton Policy Framework — in order to establish a General Plan vision for the east side that includes policies for future development in the area. The direction came after the council also agreed to move forward with the process of annexing two plots of land in the area where two separate housing development applications are being proposed.
Since June, community development director Ellen Clark said the city has been gathering input from the community and other stakeholders and reviewing some of the background related to East Pleasanton in order to develop a set of policy questions organized under several topic areas, including city boundaries; land uses; open space and recreation; public service facilities; and infrastructure and circulation.
The goal during the joint meeting was to have members of both the council and the commission weigh in on each of those policy topics and make sure the questions that staff were planning to ask as part of their framework development for each of those areas were appropriate as the city moves forward in the planning process.
“Based on that work that we’ve done so far, we’ve prepared a dozen or so policy questions that we think are important for continued discussion, analysis and study through the EPPF process,” Ben Noble, a planning consultant for the city, said during the workshop.
What followed was roughly an hour and a half of questions and comments from each of the City Council and Planning Commission members — except for Commissioner Brandon Pace, who was absent.
Some of the highlights from the workshop were members from both the commission and the council saying the city should look more into using space in East Pleasanton for recreation and that urban growth is definitely something the city needs to look into as it reviews the city’s boundaries.
Councilmember Julie Testa notably mentioned that, rather than focusing on mostly residential development, Pleasanton should focus on land use policies that would designate more areas in East Pleasanton for industrial use, similar to Livermore’s west side. She said she wants to see more analysis on the benefits between residential and industrial use in that area because residential developments would likely incur more infrastructure costs compared to industrial developments.
“We could designate an (industrial) area that would be a real positive to have … and has the financial benefits for our community instead of creating the costs (of) going in the other directions,” Testa said.
Councilmember Jeff Nibert also wanted to see that analysis because he said infrastructure requirements — much like the long-discussed potential plans to extend El Charro Road to Stanley Boulevard — would cost around $110 million to carry out those road improvements.
According to Tuesday’s staff presentation, apart from off-site roads, developers are set to assume funding responsibilities for water, sewer and on-site road infrastructure improvements.
The city will have to look at financing options to help fund off-site road improvements.
While Councilmember Matt Gaidos suggested companies like Amazon, which owns a plot of land where the company is proposing to build a warehouse, should take on a lot of the burden of paying for those street improvements, others on both the council and commission mostly agreed that a lot of these development plans depend on that road extension.
“We must prioritize getting El Charro built,” Balch said. “That is the only way to protect existing residents from being land locked in traffic and undue cost burdens on other residents in town.”
One common motif that came up during the workshop from several people was the idea of “going big or going home” when it comes to developing the east side. Members of both the council and the commission agreed with that idea and supported the notion.
Planning Commission Chair Ken Morgan said the only way to really go big is to ensure the road improvements for El Charro and move the Pleasanton Garbage Service facility from its Busch Road location.
But the overall direction from most of the council and commission was that the city needs to move forward on this process, not get too hung up on studies and analysis that can be reused from past discussions during the specific plan development and continue looking at all the different ways the city can benefit from developing in East Pleasanton.
“We have missed opportunities to plan and grow smartly knowing the pressure from the state to do so,” Gaidos said. “I think we need to plan this out and we need to attract some attractive development into the parts of Pleasanton that are inevitably going to be developed and stop hanging a big ‘No’ sign in front of city doors and then having to work from behind to do the best thing possible.”
After receiving input from the commission and council, staff will continue refining policy questions before developing and preparing an analysis on different options to address those questions. The council and commission will discuss those policy options early next year.
Industrial parks in a residential neighborhood?
Slow down.
Place a people park modeled after Oak Hill Park, located at 4100 Muirwood Drive.
Oak Hill Park is 4.3 acres.
The sidewalks meander throughout the park, curving around and accessing eight different neighborhoods.
Oak Hill Park is by far the most beautiful park in Pleasanton.
On any given day, you can find walkers, runners, wheelchairs, people using walkers, and individuals with canes.
Groups gather for exercise and conversation.
Think while you plan and before you develop.
Councilmember Testa played a major role in stopping the progress made on East Side Planning in 2018. She bears much of the responsibility for creating issues regarding RHNA shortfalls and challenges for the city to correct those shortfalls. She continues to attempt to short-circuit the council’s efforts to take the necessary actions to bring the city into compliance with state regulators. It’s time for her to pull in her horns and stop her obstructionist tactics. Neither the city, the council, nor the public benefits. Further delays only make things worse and serve only to create drama on the dais.