11 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

THE CITY OF East Pleasanton Specific Plan _ Public Comments pLEASANTONC From: Matt Sullivan Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 11:57 AM To: Mayor and City Council <citycouncil@cityofpleasantonca.gov> Cc: Nelson Fialho<NFialho@citvofpleasantonca.gov> Subject: East Pleasanton Specific Plan Mayor and Council, As someone who has participated in the civic planning processes in Pleasanton for almost 25 years, including as a Planning Commissioner, City Councilmember, and as a member of several planning committees, I strenuously object to the proposed process for the revived East Pleasanton Specific Plan. My objections, outlined below, are premised on the concept that community planning should be a public process and managed by city government on behalf of the larger community, and not for corporate interests. 1. The concept that a private developer, Ponderosa Homes,who has a speculative financial interest in the development of the east side, is proposed to "lead" and "fund"the specific planning process leaves me a loss for words. Putting a developer in charge of planning an area they want to develop is like putting a fox in charge of the henhouse. This is nothing short of our elected representative and the staff that works for them abdicating their responsibility for community planning to a private corporation intent only on profit, not doing what is in the best interest of the community at large. If the Council agrees to this strategy, why not skip the charade of a "public" process and just let Ponderosa do whatever it wants. It will be a done deal. Of course, isn't that that intent? 2. Based on the level of controversy surrounding the area,the revised planning process should not be conducted under the auspices of the Planning Commission. A new citizens task force should be established to take a fresh look at this area and consideration should be given to community needs,the effects of continued growth on greenhouse gas emissions and other infrastructure such as water and traffic circulation, how this integrates into our aging and at this point inadequate General Plan, and the upcoming RHNA allocations coming in 2021. While Planning Commission meetings are open to the public, the quality of public input afforded by a 3-minute comment does not provide the contribution of what should be a public-driven process. As we all know, community input at Planning Commission and City Council meetings can be easily ignored. The importance of planning this area requires a comprehensive approach so public desires and concerns can be built into the plan. To summarize,this proposal reeks of an end-around of the process,turning the keys to the city over to a developer with approval in the hands of pro-development officials, and freezing out the public. It would seem that this is the goal. While back-room deals are commonplace in city government,they are usually "back room". What's amazing about this proposal is how transparently undemocratic it is. Thank you Matt Sullivan cell Provided to City Council for the February 18, 2020, Meeting