CCMIN020805 - Laserfiche WebLink

proposed trails in the Oak Grove development is quantified and its impacts reflected in the EIR. Jim Van Dyke, 3362 Arbor Drive, was uncertain what permanent open space really means. When the first Kottinger Ranch development was built, there was mentioned that some of the area was designated open space. Within a few months of the completion of the development, there were no trespassing signs posted. How can one define what an environmental impact is on an area, if something as essential to a plan as dedicated open space is unclear? There was a lot of controversy about the previously proposed golf course and the label of open space for areas between fairways. That land is not suitable for people or animals. If 90% of the project is for "permanent open space", we need to define what that means. His second point was that since we are near build out in Pleasanton, when a major project is built that has significant impacts on what cannot be built. Another thing to consider is that once this "crown jewel" of undeveloped area is gone, it is gone for good. He felt this area was nicer than the Pleasanton Ridge. Becky Dennis, 838 Grey Fox Circle, indicated she was representing Citizens for a Caring Community as an affordable housing advocate. As Pleasanton approaches the limits of the housing cap for residential units, developments like this high-end housing is competing with subsidized or less profitable housing developments. She would like the EIR to consider what the burden this development would need to c~. rry for the development of affordable housing. There is a finite amount of lower income housing that has been defined for Pleasanton to build. Somehow what is built on the higher end needs to be mixed with that and make a contribution to have that fulfilled. The developer proposes to meet that obligation offsite and she was not certain how that would work out. She was concerned that somehow higher priced housing units will be built and then it will be necessary to go to the voters to get permission to exceed the housing cap in order to build lower income housing. She preferred that Pleasanton maintain its 29,000 unit-housing cap while still meeting the State housing mandates. She appreciated the concerns of the residents of Kottinger Ranch. She was involved in the referendum for the previous project. She believed with these last high-end housing projects, the city is defining its urban edge. The whole point of a housing cap and urban growth boundary is to prevent sprawl. Therefore the protection of the ability to have a housing cap and urban growth boundary is of vital importance. Those concerned about the affordable housing question want to work within that framework. She would like the EIR to address that. In a more global perspective, she would like to use this opportunity to talk about that impact so it can be applied equally to other large lot projects. She felt it would be helpful in integrating the Housing Element and the obligations that the city is committed to within that into the larger picture of land use and circulation. Kurt Kummer, 4456 Clovewood Lane, said he hiked over this property to see where the trail system would go as proposed in the project. The views from this area are spectacular. On the other hand, if you can see Pleasanton from there, that means if houses are built, you can see the houses from Pleasanton. On the other hand, that kind of deal (400 plus acres of open space) is exactly what we were thriiied to get with the Bernal Property. We got some houses where some would not like to see houses, but in return we will get a really beautiful park. How does one balance that? Everyone wants what is best for Pleasanton. Something will be built on that property sooner or later. The last proposal would have given Pleasanton a Robert Trent Jones, Jr. golf course free of charge. Based on our over $34 million hindsight, that might not have been such a bad-idea. He would like the EIR to address Joint Workshop City Council and Planning Commission 9 02/08/05