CCMIN050311 - Laserfiche WebLink

Frank Brandes said the City has done an excellent job of spending and distributing services throughout the City. He supports the current staff and task force recommendations and said the current Housing Element Update has been to recommend sites for high density development as decreed by the court and not by residents. In 1976, there was a lot debate about what kind of residential development should occur at Valley Trails, and he is glad to see it off of the list. He referred to the 10 acres proposed under Site 7 and said this makes sense, given the development of Safeway Stores and he thinks t hat many of the most recent residents are often those who object to new development in their areas. Robert Gonilla, Danbury Park Homeowners Association Board Member, echoed Nancy Allen's comments. Becky Dennis said all sites have pluses and minuses. She recalled the debate on Hacienda and the emphasis for a walk able community, and said there is a need for housing near the Safeway Store. She does not think the site should be eliminated, cited its proximity to the nearby park, the fairgrounds, future bus, transit and other services. Dick Vesperman, representing the owner of the Valley Trail site, said the owner has disputed the decision by the Housing Element task force to drop this site from those under consideration. They believe the decision was based on incorrect information in comments made at the workshops and that insufficient effort was made to examine the comments and determine the veracity. He spoke about comments in their letter dated May 2, 2011 which he will provide to the Clerk. They also voice concerns that discussions concerning the site were held prior to that meeting. The property owner continues to believe that the highest and best use of their property is single family residential as it has been zoned for the last 50 years; however, they have been thwarted numerous times over the last 50 years in pursuing such development which they believe would enhance values of nearby properties and increase property tax revenues. Lacking the ability to develop the property for its zoning, the owner would be happy to see it considered for affordable housing and feels this would be the next best use of the property, as such development would be consistent with the church's biblical mandate; to care for the poor. He clarified that the church's only interest is developing 7 of the 9 acres there. They plan to rebuild a facility on the site. He said the second statement was that the property was acquired by the church as a gift by the City because of widening of First Street, which is not true. He said the church bought the property from its original developer; Martin Homes. Frank Jiang said he lives in the Walnut Hills community next to Site 7 and voiced concerns of varied negative impacts if the Pleasanton Gateway is kept on the list. Pam Hardy said she lives in the Ironwood community, agrees with previous speakers in their belief that there could be a disproportionate number of units identified for the east area. She has long awaited the east side specific plan area and its opportunities, as it could complete the roadway network system that the General Plan has envisioned for a long time. She acknowledged the Council's position and the fact that the City must comply with its RHNA requirement, and thanked the task force, Housing Commission, Planning Commission and staff for their work and in looking out for the community. Heather Truro asked the Council to look at their group as all Pleasanton residents as opposed to Site 7 or 8 opponents. She agrees that they would not like to have to deal with the situation of having additional high density housing, but we must have it. She asked to see Site 7 remain and continue through the process and to consider dispersing or reducing units. Taking it off because of the outcry of people not wanting it in the community is unfair, and it needs to go through the City Council Minutes Page 10 of 19 May 3, 2011