CCMIN102682 - Laserfiche WebLink

193 Mr. Roger Manning, 1078 Vintner Way, President of the Vintage Hills Homeowners Association, stated this group had reviewed the plans of the Quail Creek project since its beginning. He stated their concerns regarding traffic, density, and open space had been partly mitigated and at the previous Council meeting regarding the plan, the Homeowners group had partially endorsed the plan. Mr. Manning stated there have been many changes in the last year regarding development in the area, such as the Martin development, Stony Ridge Vineyard concerts, continued high-density develop- ment on Vineyard Avenue, school bus problems, pedestrian and bicycle traffic on Vine- yard Avenue, aesthetics of the project, poor design of the project, lack of adequate park facilities, treatment of park access to Shadow Cliffs, etc., which has caused the Vintage Hills Homeowners Association to now formally oppose the Quail Creek pro- ject, as evidenced in a petition presented to the City-Attorney on October 25, 1982, signed by 417 residents, which read as follows: "We, the undersigned residents of Pleasanton, are opposed to the above referenced proposal for the reasons stated below and do hereby petition the City Council of Pleasanton, California to reject the proposal: "The proposed densely sited 'affordable housing' development is not appropriate adjacent to the existing semi-rural neighborhood. "Higher density housing is normally used as a buffer between retail-commercial- industrial areas and lower density residential areas. This project is a buffer between a lower density residential area and agricultural and park lands. We don't want to be buffered away from our rural environment. Our rural setting is what brought us to the edge of town in spite of the increased travel times. "When many of us bought our homes the General Plan Map-1976 showed a 1996 'Limit of Urbanization' that stopped at the edge of the existing mobile home park, and made the following statement: One of the most important features of the accompanying General Plan Map is the 'Limit of Urbanization-1996' Which remarks, generally, that part of the planning area scheduled to urbanize prior to 1996 from that part which will develop after that date. This feature should be closely examined, especially by those interested in the development potential of the community. "And yet, here we are in 1982 with a proposal for a development of more than two hundred units outside of that boundary. "T ' h~s type of development should be located close to jobs, near retail and com- mercial areas, not isolated without public transportation at the edge of the city in a rural neighborhood with no public parks. "We believe that the poor planning displayed by this proposed land use would be evidenced by a reduction in local property values should this densely packed 'affordable housing' enclave be tacked onto the existing neighborhood. If good planning and zoning procedures were followed it would not be necessary to ask a small group of homeowners to bear the brunt of the City's contribu- tion to affordable housing. As it stands, a few are being asked to sacrifice a portion of their hard earned equities in order to assuage the conscience of the City Council. "As regards the proposal itself, we find it to be astonishingly devoid of any aesthetic considerations. The plan shows long straight streets with densely packed, nearly identical format units giving a row house, monotonous street- scape that has been passe in good design for fifty years. Without the 'afford- 7. 10/26/82