SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Subject: FW: Ponderosa housing not needed Attachments: City Council Agenda Report for Ponderosa Homes Application 10.6.2015.pdf SUPPLEMENTAL nnATIERIA� From: John Carroll [] 3ravided to the City Council Sent:Tuesday, October 06, 2015 2:40 PM To: Mayor and City Council After Distribution of Packet Subject: Ponderosa housing not needed OCT Date 0 6 10i� Mayor Thorne and Members of the City Council, You are being asked to modify the general plan to allow for more housing when more housing is the last thing Pleasanton needs to be considering when you consider several factors.These are the same reasons which caused the east side plan to be put on hold, and they are just as valid in this case. #1 We are experiencing a major drought,and one El Nino is not going to get our reservoirs or our water table back to normal. #2 Pleasanton has already rezoned land to meet the RHNA requirement, so you are under no obligation to change the zoning. #3 Pleasanton has 1700 housing units approved already without having yet seen the impacts on schools,traffic, and air quality. Given all these factors why would you consider rezoning land which has been designated for public and institutional use. If the City of Pleasanton allows Ponderosa to build 25 homes on land previously zoned for use as a church,then Pleasanton is collectively sacrificing(having less land designated for alternative uses)this land so that a few can benefit. Pleasanton does not need the additional housing since the type of homes proposed would not be considered work-force housing. So besides benefitting the church, and the developer, how does this benefit Pleasanton as a whole? Is the benefit so great that it might justify modifying the General Plan? Seems to me there is a burden of proof that must be taken on by the property owner (or perhaps by members of the City Council if they so choose)to demonstrate why modifying the General Plan to accept more housing and less land for alternate uses actually benefits Pleasanton in this case. If the church could demonstrate why the current location is a poor site for a church but more suitable for housing perhaps! Perhaps if Pleasanton were being sued to meet mandated housing numbers,and we were not in a drought,and didn't already have 1,700 units already approved for development,and didn't have overcrowded schools then perhaps the City Council might consider making a windfall profit for a nice Christian organization. But if it were a Muslim/Islamic organization—would you still be considering making them a windfall profit? Thank you for considering my viewpoint! John Carroll 2981 Moreno Ave Pleasanton, CA 94588 Click here to report this email as spam. 1