CCMIN030299 - Laserfiche WebLink

area that was not developed and because the area was already being served by existing streets and utilities. This project is less than 2 units per acre and is surrounded on all sides by development. The property is stubbed for sewer and water utilities. This location fits all the parameters of an in- fill project. He has worked with staff to ensure a project that would fit the high quality of life known to Pleasanton. It meets the requirements that are in the General Plan regarding in-fill projects. He is proposing the project will be completed by the year 2000. Many meetings have been held to address the neighbors' concerns. He discussed the effort put into the proposed plan and the amenities this project provides. He believed this project represented smart growth and is the kind of project provided for in the General Plan. This project will be an enhancement to the community and helps address much needed housing. He believed that the referendum is not about this project but about a much bigger agenda. He was saddened that after two and half years of hard work a project can be stopped. He requested that this be placed on the June 1999 ballot. Ms. Ayala asked Mr. Summers to point out on the map the existing neighborhoods. Mr. Summers showed on the map the existing Foothill Farms subdivision that has 3.7 units to an acre and Foothill Knolls, which is built out at 2.0 units to an acre. His project is less than 2 units per acre. Jim Merritt, 4141 Foothill Road, said when he realized his orchard was dying and he was approached by the DeSilva Group to develop the land, he stated he wanted to develop something that would be compatible with the existing neighborhoods. He said the DeSilva Group wanted to do the same thing, so he worked with the DeSilva Group to create a plan that worked. He talked about traffic problems on Foothill Road and believed this project would help alleviate some of those problems. He indicated that the people who would be impacted the most were in favor of the project. He said he was instrumental in starting Valley Memorial Hospital in Pleasanton, which is looking for 15 million dollars. He felt the one million dollar amenity received from this project would help the hospital and improve the life of everyone in Pleasanton. Mayor Tarver asked the remaining speakers to direct their comments to whether the Council' s decision should be to put this issue on the ballot or to rescind the ordinance. Kris Kumaran, 6450 Calle Esperanza, gave six reasons why the Council should rescind its decision: 1 ) elections are expensive, 2) the residents of Pleasanton have spoken with the number of signatures gathered, 3) there are too many approved projects waiting to be constructed, 4) the residents of Pleasanton have plenty to decide on already for the November ballot, 5) set clear directions for staff that its mission is to recommend projects without doubling the density and 6) the schools are already overcrowded. He did not understand why Council wanted to put the cart before the horse. He asked them to rescind their decision and demonstrate its concern for the residents of Pleasanton. Pleasanton City Council 16 03/02/99 Minutes