CCMIN082305 - Laserfiche WebLink

he asked Council to consider this in totality, as it is difficult to envision each of the projects independently without seeing the total impact. He pointed out that there is limited access to the proposed sites for these projects and it would be disruptive to existing neighborhoods and their quality of life in terms of traffic, congestion and infrastructure. He recognized the need for affordable and senior housing and protection of the City's environment, which should be considered in a strategic plan for that area. He believed there a number of alternatives in terms of ways that potentially these projects could be redefined or traded off economically. Bing Hadley, a Pleasanton resident and President of the Kottinger Ranch Homeowners Association, said it was a special time for Council to consider a total strategy to make sure that all decisions will meet issues around community character and what the City should look like, and how it balances business and residential needs for the future. Shareef Mahdavi, a Pleasanton resident, concurred with Ms. Frost's comments. He did not believe developers should be rewarded when they exhibited bad behavior, particularly Greenbriar as it put many homeowners at risk in terms of the way it did not disclose what its true intention was for the property above Bridle Creek. He asked Council to take this into consideration when it was considering granting PUDs to developers to build anywhere from 50 to 200 homes. He expressed concern for locked in access routes for the proposed Lund Ranch II and Kottinger Hills developments. Marty Inderbitzen, a Pleasanton resident, found it interesting that a vision that had been included in the General Plan for several decades and once ratified by the voters in 1996 is somehow askew and a new vision needs to develop as passage of time has made the old one invalid. He pointed out that the southeast portion of the General Plan does reflect a vision of substantial open space protection and greatly reduced development. The proposal submitted does propose a preservation of 88% of the 562-acre property as open space with only 12% to be developed. To the extent the invitation carries with it words that would be perceived by any land owner as threatening, such as it includes a predetermined goal of greatly reduced density, it is not a way to welcome landowners to participate. If Council were to proceed with the goal of developing consensus for greatly reduced development, he suggested that it remove the threatening words out of the proposed goal and make it a more even handed invitation so that everyone understood there is an opportunity to work and negotiate and try to achieve a goal for everyone to succeed. He believed the existing General Plan reduced development, and the goal as stated signals an intention to reduce the value of a property owners land and take away from development rights that already exist. Mayor Hosterman pointed out that neighbors have stated that they are willing to discuss the future of the southeast hills in Pleasanton. Mr. Inderbitzen noted one piece of good news in this proposed goal is the acknowledgement that those properties are entitled to some level of development and it is a major milestone for Council members and members of the public in these immediate neighborhoods to recognize. Mayor Hosterman pointed out that there are a significant amount of new neighbors since this project was referended. In order to get Lund Ranch II and other projects to the point where they are viable and supported by the neighborhood, she asked Mr. Interbitzen if he would be willing to work through this process and include the newest neighbors in these discussions? City Council Priorities Workshop 3 08/23/05 Minutes