CCMIN032001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Dennis thanked Ms. Kass for allowing her to walk the property. Phil Howard, 1027 Hancock Court, indicated he had fought this project for years and finally reached a compromise. He felt that hill should never be developed. We finally came to agreement for development, and we are back here talking about this again. There are people here who don't even live here that are urging approval of this project to go forward. In addition to what we have argued about before, we now have rolling blackouts. For every new house the City could be adding nights with no power. Ms. Michelotti said those people from out of town purchased the property three years ago. Leslie Howard, 1027 Hancock Court, reiterated the comments of Linda Butler. The issues brought up over the years, the springs and drainage, the view, loss of wildlife, etc. This has been going on for four years. It is hurtful to feel that this is being rehashed again. This is a nice place to live, however it is getting less so. She remembered when it was the nde when you could enroll your child in whatever school you chose, that choice is no longer there. She remembered going to the DMV or a bank and not having to wait in line. She now sits through three or four traffic signals changes at Bernal and First Street to get to work in the morning. We hashed out all the issues surrounding New Cities, and she doesn't want to go through that again. The rules should not change. People from surrounding developments need to have their voices heard. Mitch Mehlman, 1153 Lund Ranch Road, said he was a member of the steering committee for the North Sycamore Neighborhood Association, which opposes the request of the applicant. He questioned whether this is legally eligible to be on the agenda. This is an appeal to two previous rejections by the Planning Commission. How many times do we vote on the same thing? This issue was voted on October 19, 1999. If the vote proceeds tonight, he felt the City was opening itself to potential lawsuits. The Council should not go back on its word. There have been no substantial changes to the project and there is no reason to reconsider the matter. He also believed the developer should be barred from further appeals. If Council decides to vote on this issue, he presented his rebuttal of the applicant's claims. The applicant felt there was a guarantee of an annexation election on November 1999. There was no guarantee on the timing of the election and the City has been working diligently with state agencies to mitigate concerns. The applicant claims there is no nexus between the projects. Mr. Mehlman disagreed and felt the projects are intimately related and have been for some time. Infrastructure, traffic, roads, schools, parks, etc. are all critical issues considered by Council and the Planning Commission in numerous evaluations of the project. The developer has a myopic and biased view. When he offered to fund the infrastructure to move the project forward, there was no protest that the projects were unrelated. The applicant claims the purpose for the condition no longer exists. He again disagreed and said the shared costs of infrastructure are still a factor to be considered. The development should not go forward without Happy Valley. Finally, the application claims the condition is not compliant with a variety of laws, plans and documents. He believed this Pleasanton City Council 17 03/20/01 Minutes