My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2022
>
020322 SPECIAL
>
01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/7/2023 1:20:23 PM
Creation date
1/27/2022 11:55:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
LONG TERM AGREEMENT
DOCUMENT DATE
2/3/2022
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Document Relationships
Map Alternatives
(Message)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2022\020322 SPECIAL
PRESENTATION
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2022\020322 SPECIAL
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
I strongly encourage you to establish districts that keep neighborhoods intact, and keep adjacent <br />neighborhoods together where they face common issues. For example, the neighborhoods that <br />straddle 1-680 south of Stoneridge Dr. and north of Bernal Ave. face many of the same traffic, public <br />health (noise and air pollution from the freeway), and economic class issues and should be <br />combined. Similarly, the existing and likely future high-density development north of Stoneridge has <br />similar characteristics. Pleasanton south of Bernal is more affluent and rural in nature which makes <br />sense as a distinct district. Downtown and the Vintage Hills eastern area seems like a logical district. I <br />don't know how this stacks up from a population standpoint but I would suggest districts along a <br />north -south -east -west division makes sense. While I have some concerns that districting will lead to <br />"provincial" fighting on the City Council, I also think it might strengthen neighborhood <br />representation where now neighborhood concerns are marginalized in favor of special interests <br />(e.g., Chamber of Commerce, developers, and favored sports groups). <br />• l r <br />I strongly support a ballot measure that will return local control over land use to municipalities. If <br />further refinement to the ballot language is needed as suggested by staff, I'm ok with that too. But in <br />contrary to staff recommendation, I would urge the Council to take a stand in supporting an <br />initiative that achieves the goals of local control over land -use decisions. <br />Housing ElemQnt Update <br />As someone who lives in northwest Pleasanton, I'm concerned with the numbers and DUA of the <br />Stoneridge Mall site. We all know that the RHNA process is driven by high density growth to house <br />tech workers. The idea that these units would be for lower-income residents is a fantasy. This model <br />of economic growth is unsustainable. And with the approval of Workday, 10x Genomics, Costco plus <br />810 units at the mall site this would make northwest Pleasanton a sacrifice zone in the name of fiscal <br />growth. If you approve this at least be honest about what you're doing. <br />Thank you. <br />Matt Sullivan <br />Click here to report this email as spam. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.