01.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

back because the Council is following its General Plan. She asked the Council to deny the EIR and then put on the ballot for the people a Ridgeland Protection ordinance just like the Pleasanton Ridge. Jerry Pentin said he supported open space, felt the project was great, said he worked on the Callippe project for 10 years, and supported the project. Brian Arkin believed a loophole exists in the current planning process, asked to modify the development agreement to delay vesting of this project until the City obtains title to the 497 acres. The current plan is to approve the project and have it vest in 6 weeks, locking in the City forever. However, the City is not locked into accepting the land. The problem is that the final map could be in two years and a new and different City Council could decide not to accept the 497 acres for a variety of legitimate reasons and then we would lose the major mitigation of this project. Martin Inderbitzen said in 1996 the citizens of Pleasanton, by a vote of the entire community, drew a line around the community identifying the urban growth limitations for the City. Inside that line development was allowed; outside it was not. The Oak Grove property is inside the line. He noted a number of issues that have been raised about the General Plan and read items from the 1996 General Plan which he sat on the committee for. He said the General Plan designates much of south Pleasanton as Public Health and Safety and wild lands overlay with no development capacity of a single family home on existing private lots of record. Other close and hilly areas are designated as rural density residential to encourage the clustering of large lot custom homes suitable to this terrain. The General Plan, in identifying public health and safety lands outside the urban growth boundary and rural density residential lands inside the urban growth boundary clearly took into consideration the lands that were to be preserved as open space and the lands that were to be transition lands, but allow for development inside the urban growth boundary. Consideration should be given to preserving large, open space acreage in south Pleasanton by a combination of private open space and a public park system. Trail rights-of-way and land should be acquired of developer dedications as well as by bond measures. This is precisely what they are doing with Oak Grove. He believed the process has been challenged and that it was important to state that the process they are required to follow does not include a mandate to go out and meet with residents of a neighborhood or any citizen who calls you on the phone, meet with them day or night, weekend or weekday as he has done for four years. He has not refused to meet with a single individual who has called him. He has offered to meet with individuals who have not bothered to call back and his view is that they do not like the answer they get so they go elsewhere. He felt the process has been a fabulously successful one, they have gone 4 years through it, this is the 9th public hearing that has been noticed, they need to look back in those hearings, all emails, letters and phone calls and remember all of the support that has been there, broad-base and diverse, for this project. He said there is no doubt that the project is an imposition on the residents of Kottinger Ranch, but there is no doubt that it was anticipated for development when that project was built and before the first resident moved in. They are doing their best to reduce what is their entitlement on this property in order to offset some of those impacts. He thinks it would be a terrible mistake to somehow throw the process out. The process that the city staff has helped them engage in was one that broadened public awareness of the project. It is always the case that when you get down to the final decision point, new people get re-engaged and they want to re-plow old ground. He said the City has a professional staff of planning and legal, traffic, biological, visual consultants all of whom are independent, directly under contract with the city or under contract City Council Minutes 17 October 2, 2007