CCMIN051804 - Laserfiche WebLink

Given the response that Council has received from the community about this project and the fact that the City is approaching its housing cap, Ms. Hosterman asked if the applicant was concerned about going down a road that will not result in a development project? Mr. Inderbitzen said that the development project that was proposed 10 years ago is different than the current proposed project. This project is a 98-unit, custom lot project that provides about 700,000 yards of grading in its current conception. A total of 65 acres will be impacted and the applicant is proposing to provide 495 acres of open space to the City. He believed this project is entitled to a fair hearing on the issues, both in terms of its impact on the property and its impact on the neighboring community. It is important for the applicant to get community, Planning Commission and City Council feedback on the specific objections that someone might have to the project. Likewise, the applicant is entitled to hear what people think about the potential benefits that the project might provide. He pointed out that this project, like every project, is required to provide a solution to part of the City's affordable housing problem and there might be some creative solutions that this project could offer. He did not believe the City should be in the position of prejudging the project before the details have been disclosed. The process is designed to generate information, ideas and solutions. As projects go through the development process in the City of Pleasanton, whether they fail or are successful, the process creates a better understanding about how the land is to be used in the community and it identifies opportunities for the community. Mr. Brozosky asked at what point in the environmental review process would the scoping session occur? Mr. Swift said that the scoping session would be the initial step in the environmental review process and it would be scheduled with the Planning Commission within the next several months. Ms. Ayala asked what holding a scoping session would accomplish, as a new Council will take office in November 2004. Mr. Inderbitzen said the scoping session is helpful and the process should not be stopped just because an election is being held. He believed there is some validity to the institutional knowledge that is carried forward when this type of process is allowed. He believed that the consensus an~ongst this Council on this proposed project would not be that different from the consensus amongst the next Council. Ms. Ayala pointed out that this project would create the same type of traffic issues that Crellin residents are facing. Mr. Inderbitzen said he would like to find some way to mitigate the traffic to an acceptable level, or find an alternative route. Pleasanton City Council 32 05/18/04 Minutes