CCMIN092705 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Hosterman said one of the issues discussed previously is to have sustainable goals in the General Plan Update. There was discussion of a Sustainability Element to be included in the General Plan, but the preference was to have sustainability woven throughout the General Plan and its elements. She reiterated the concerns mentioned to include discussion regarding the distinction of fees and their impacts between assisted living facilities and other housing types; inclusion of all previous discussions and public input; compressed schedule opportunities; keep all vacant land on the table pending public discussion and staff input; downtown densities; gross developable vs. net developable acres as it relates to density; language of the inclusionary zoning ordinance; number of units remaining to reach housing cap; and finally the issue of loosing Councilmembers or Planning Commissioners from this process due to expiration of terms and the possibility of a "steering committee." 3. MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC Vera Dunder, 5328 Brookside Court, referred to the map and #46 as not having further discussion. She asked that this be discussed. The property is zoned "P" and "A" (Agriculture). The sewer sludge was used on this land. She was afraid that the property could be changed to "C" so it could be sold and developed. She was concerned about the possible contaminants on the property and the dust that could be blown to the adjacent park where children play and where there is commercial development. The Environmental Protection Agency still does not know about the effects of sewage sludge on landfills. Rick Irby, 3461 Norton Way #2, referred to #47 on the map (3780 Stanley Boulevard), and questioned the acreage designation. He felt 1.5 acres was for one parcel not all three. He noted his mother has lived on the property all her life and he has a long relationship with Brian Swift, who is no longer with the city. The new staff does not keep in touch with him on developments around her property, especially with regard to Nevada Street. There is also question about the sewer line coming down from Vineyard Avenue. Mr. Iserson said staff would investigate the acreage question. As far as the extension of Nevada Street, he did not know there were issues in terms of discussions with property owners in the area. He would discuss the matter with the Public Works Department. Vanessa Kawaihau, 871 Sycamore Road, referred to the matrix and indicated Lund Ranch is not in the specific plan area. It abuts the North Sycamore Specific Plan area. She noted there are 154 acres for the Spotorno plan and the matrix only shows 20. The property owner and his developer applied to build 102 homes, which is also not reflected. She felt this gave the impression that the city was only concentrating on the upper PUD areas and moving all his density to the flat area, which would affect the community character element, specifically policy 18, which is to preserve the semi-rural character of the Happy Valley community. Increasing density in the flat area, while preserving the hillside, would decimate the semi-rural community. That is quickly disappearing in the Pleasanton area and very difficult to find in the Greater Bay Area as a whole. She urged this body to work to preserve the Happy Valley community. Joint Workshop City Council/Planning Commission 7 09/27/05