CCMIN101999 - Laserfiche WebLink

asked for Council support of the PUD application, development agreement and growth management allocation. Karl Geier, 1331 N. California Blvd., Walnut Creek, representing New Cities, complimented staff for its efforts in the negotiations and asked for Coancil to consider the New Cities project on its merits. He reiterated New Cities' willingness to install the infrastructure, subject to reimbursement by Black Mountain Development. Ms. Dennis asked what New Cities received by having a development agreement. Mr. Geier said the agreement assures New Cities that a tecision is made trader existing laws of the City and the project is not subject to subsec uent actions such as the CAPP Initiative or a future legislative body of Pleasanton. Mitch Mehlman, 1153 Lund Ranch Road, felt the densil y of the New Cities project is still too high and would like it reduced by 20% or 30!/o. However, in the spirit of compromise he will withdraw those objections and support t'~e neighborhood. The privacy requirement of the North Sycamore Specific Plan is stil 1 an issue and he is not happy the City staff wants to have a trail through this project. lte felt it defeats the purpose of preserving privacy. He does not want the open offe:' of dedication to be accepted. The trail is not compliant because it does not go anywhere. He quoted from the General Plan regarding trails which indicated trails were to connect major activity areas, such as schools, parks and shopping districts. None oftk ose exist in this urea. The access road invites people to hang around and he did not feel there was a need to maintain the creek. Trucks can get back there without a road. :te believed a park is needed in southeast Pleasanton. He did not consider passive p~rks as meeting the requirements. Pleasanton has done a great job in the north. Th~ Council should direct staff to set up a task force to develop a park in southeast Pleasa~ton. Lastly, Council should consider the falmess of development agreements that pr ~vide funds to specific residents, specifically Happy Valley residents, for improvemenls to their property. The rest of Pleasanton gets nothing from these agreements. Tom McCormick, 1129 Lund Ranch Road, commended everyone involved in this two-year struggle. He can see the light at the end of the tunnel, but there are still important issues. One issue is the trail. He is willing to compDmise on density. The only entity that wants the trail is the City. The Specific Plan re :luires privacy to be preserved. The trail is within a few feet of the adjacent neighbors' backyards and will be raised because of the contour of the land. That is completely contrary to preservation of rural views and privacy. He strongly objected to the trail. The other issue is the access road, which he did not think is necessary. Maintenance would be in the summer and if the area is done properly there would be no need for emergency repairs. If you weigh the cost of the access road' s effects on the residents versus a truck 3r two some future winter, it seems there should not be an access road. Ken Czaja, 1141 Lnnd Ranch Road, representing the North Sycamore Neighborhood Association, indicated he had worked on this coa~promise. This is a 13 10/19/99 Pleasanton City Council Minutes