CCMIN030299 - Laserfiche WebLink

be done now in order to protect future generations. He did not support the project before and urged the other Councilmembers to rescind their vote. Mayor Tarver agreed with Councilmember Pico. He did not like to be labeled a no- growther and the developers being called big bad developers. He said this project did not offend him in regards to the design and density. Other things that concerned him were the air quality, the demand on the water supply, the overcrowded schools, and traffic congestion. He said the people are speaking and want to be part of the process. When they are not getting any response they revert to referendum and initiatives. He wished there were a better way. He did not like to see neighbors against neighbors or community against community. He said it is a small project and the developer addressed the immediate neighbors concerns, but now there is another group that says enough is enough. He supported rescinding the ordinance, in order to give staff a chance to address some of the issues. He said if this goes to a vote, the people will voice their opinion and will set the standard for future development. Ms. Michelotti said this project was in process for four and one-half years and many people were involved. On the night the project was approved only one individual came from the neighborhood and made the statement that the DeSilva Group had done an excellent job. Much needed improvements to Foothill Road will be done with this project. From the comments that were made, the Council added a condition that the project would not be built until a new school was built. This has been accomplished. She did not agree with imposing a moratorium. The Council listened to the community that did not want the adjacent streets opened up and density increased. She said the correct process was followed and she would stand behind her decision. This is an in-fill project. Mr. Merritt could have developed his property years ago with a much higher density. The correct process was followed. Now the community needs to decide if this is a project that needs to be developed or not. She is concerned with the traffic, air quality and other issues. She said the Council unanimously approved only one project last year. She felt the Council has listened to the community. It created an urban growth boundary and a housing cap. She was willing to put this to the vote of the people. Ms. Dennis felt it was fair if the applicant wanted an opportunity to present its case to the community. She said the Council was aware why the referendum was being circulated. She believed the applicant and the property owner deserve an opportunity for an approval. What they propose is consistent with the General Plan. In following the progress of the referendum she encountered people who were characterized as confused and angry. But nothing was done to confuse them. People were told that Councilmembers were on the take and the project was not consistent with the General Plan. She disagreed with the first statement and said the project is consistent with the General Plan. This project will also provide extra amenities that are not in the facilities plan. The Council even adjusted the fee structure to accommodate people's concerns for slow growth. She believed discussions needed to be held with the community to clarify the issues so she would be satisfied that the people knew what they were asking for and understood the consequences. She said this project five years ago would have been approved Pleasanton City Council 19 03/02/99 Minutes