Hostermans Contradictions Around Town, posted by Rick, a member of the Vintage Hills Elementary School community, on Aug 13, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Jennifer Hosterman professes to be an environmentalist. She rails agains global warming and champions the green agenda. Her behavior and her position on local issues runs counter to the environmental movement.
She supports the Oak Grove devepment: A develoment of building mega mansions in the pristine hills of Pleasanton. These homes, some of which can be larger than 10,000 square feat, are sure to leave a massive carbon footprint.
In a recent interview, Hosterman was asked about the City's response to a lawsuit from ABAG. The suit contends that Pleasanton has not met its requirement to provide low income housing. Hosterman suggested that low income housing should be provided in of all places, Brentwood! Apparently, Hosterman would like to turn low income people into super commuters. That would produce tons of carbon, pollution, and perpetuate the traffic mess on interstate 580.
Finally, she keeps a wild falcon as a pet. This is against a local ordinance but she recieved an exemption from the board. One wonders what would happen if we all decided to capture wild animals for our personal pleasure.
As one who supports as strong environmental agenda, I find Mayor Hosterman has demonstrated poor leadership as a champion regarding global warming, pollution, and suburban sprawl.
Posted by jackles, a member of the Vintage Hills Elementary School community, on Aug 13, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Echoing Rick's point, my daughter and I are disappointed in the council's decision last year or whenever to build out the land for the sports park. this appears to be marshlands which serve an important role protecting people and property from floods and is a habitat to many species. Why does the city of pleasanton think of themselves as green? Hardly!!
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 13, 2008 at 7:37 pm
I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. Are you referring to the Staples Ranch property? Did you know that Pleasanton had very little control over that since the land is owned by Alameda County?
What would you propose for Oak Grove, keeping in mind that property owners have rights too? The Oak Grove agreement gives 500 acres of that land to Pleasanton for parkland/open space. Did you forget that Matt Sullivan also supports Oak Grove and the process by which it came about (where's the "Sullivan Contradictions" post)? Also, you seem really sure that the Oak Grove homes are going to leave large carbon footprints. Really? There's no plans on the table for the homes. What's your inside information? How do you know they possibly won't have solar panels, green building materials, grey water systems, etc.?
Posted by Disillusioned Supporter, a resident of the Spotorno Ranch neighborhood, on Aug 14, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Did YOU know that as a new council member Jennifer publically promised to "never approve another million dollar home on a hillside again in Pleasanton?"
Did you also know that the agreement for Oak Grove calls for the paraphernalia to "hook up" solar panels and such on the proposed homes but does not actually call for them to be installed? The approval process in the future may call for solar panels and whatnot but the truth is Oak Grove was approved without those essential (we do agree on this?) and easy stipulations being mandated.
Did you also know that after making such a big deal about naming the city golf course after an endangered butterfly (which was never actually on the golf course property as I recall), she approved Oak Grove who's development will bulldoze an estimated 55 acres of prime habitat where the Speyeria callippe callippe as well as its host plant viola pendunculata actually live undisturbed today?
Did you also know that after professing to care about wild raptors (she does keep one as a hunting pet, right?-having saved it from the rigors of living in the wild) she approved Oak Grove which itself admits will destroy raptor nesting habitat (although in a truly humane gesture the developer will hire someone to make sure the nests are empty before they knock down the trees holding them!) This desecration, along with the loss of Callippe habitat are apparently a few of the reasons East Bay Parks refused to accept the 500 acres of “free land”-you speak about -into their park system.
How about interpreting the 11-year-in-the-making-City Council approved-Vineyard Corridor Plan in such a “flexible” manor-not manner in this case-that she completely ignored it in order to approve a 14,000+ square foot energy guzzling home? Should the co-author of the Ahwahnee Water Principals so readily allow 50+ established oak trees to be cut down and then replaced by 500 trees (put there to camouflage this residence from the rest of Pleasanton) that will need irrigation for the next ten years when her own website claims water is our “most precious resource?”
…She pushed a Home Depot despite the traffic implications after objecting to a controversial water park (which honestly was slated for disturbed property and would have been open 3 only about months of the year) that was less than a mile away!
The list goes on!
We nature lover and the traffic haters who supported her from the beginning DO have a right to be disappointed.
And Yes, Stacey, we're not that happy with Matt either!
Posted by Rick, a resident of the Vineyard Hills neighborhood, on Aug 14, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Stacey you can't be serious.
It is consumption that drives pollution.
Wether you stick a few solar panels on a roof or use grey water system is largely irrelevant.
Those huge homes will have to be filled with furniture, appliances, electonics etc. They will have to be heated and cooled. I suspect these 10,000 square foot homes will have between 2 and 4 people living in them. What a tremendouse waste.
Meanwhile, destruction of natural habitat, and the displacement of foxes, gophers, squirrels, vultures, and yes the very species of falcon that Mayor Hosterman holds captive will be irreversible. But hey, they will call it "green" and get politicians like Hostermann to sell it.
Posted by fact checker, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 14, 2008 at 8:04 pm
No homes have been approved in Oak Grove, only the placement of lots. There are no homes. All homes, including any solar panels or green building requirements, will go through normal planning procedures when the time comes.
There is no confirmed sighting of the endangered butterfly, however the host plant does grow there. That is not evidence that the butterfly exists.
East Bay Regional Park service did not like the previous plan that included many more homes and a golf course. The park district has remained silent on the current Oak Grove approved plan. Just call the park district and ask.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 14, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Not sure what you're getting at. Are we all supposed to start living in mud huts now? Oh, Vineyard Hills, huh? You know, marshland got plowed under to build my house... Hey, now wait a minute. Are you going to offer up your alternative on Oak Grove? I posted mine awhile ago! Web Link
Thanks for the insight. I don't know details regarding her time as a councilmember since I wasn't paying attention to local issues back then. Hosterman also had promised in the last two elections to synchronize traffic lights in Pleasanton as part of mitigating traffic problems (Brozosky actually did too if I recall correctly). Notice any difference? *grin* Regarding checking for raptor nests, that's standard mitigation procedures...
Hey! Maybe all humans should disappear from the face of the Earth! Leave it for the other animals. I hear Mars is nice this time of year.
Posted by Still Disillusioned, a resident of the Spotorno Ranch neighborhood, on Aug 18, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Not that hard to check the facts huh?
My point regarding the solar hookups on the proposed homes was accurate, that info was in the city issued agreement with the developers. My point was that given the fact Jennifer has moved her lips enough times to indicate she’s all for alternative energy, green building and all that sort of stuff, she would have insisted on those provisions-and gotten the Lins to agree to it-before voting “yes.”
Also, given that she voted to completely ignore the Vineyard Corridor Plan (“normal” planning that took 11 years to put in place and a single vote to invalidate!) to ok a ginormous energy-consuming home there, how can anyone be comforted in thinking that she wouldn’t do the same in the Oak Grove planning process. I didn’t start this thread, but that’s what the person probably meant by “Hosterman’s contradictions.” Get it?
As for the Callippe butterfly on the property. I cited a study done when the Lin’s brought the property to the city the first time around. The biologists then did find the host plants, eggs and the butterfly itself. Of course, that was a few years ago before the Mayor’s naming of the golf course brought the butterfly to Pleasanton’s attention. The study you presumably cite in your contribution was again paid for by the developers, but this time was performed by a “professional” out-of-state biologist who admitted to never having visited the property. Gee whiz, he didn’t find the Callippe Callippe, although the host plant seems to have been there still thriving, undisturbed since the last check. Surprised? He did “find” another butterfly he reported, "Callippe-Comstock,” which he indicated was not on the federally endangered list. (“it’s ok to bulldoze now…..”) Problem is, according to Fish and Game that butterfly IS endangered as well. Some biologist huh? Contradiction: If you indicate you care about a butterfly enough to name a whole golf course for it why do you then ok the destruction of 55 acres of its prime habitat? Pssssst…. Fact Checker, the main reason listed for loss of the Callippe butterfly-hence the endangered designation-is HABITAT LOSS.
I will apologize for not listing all the reasons why East Bay Regional Parks objected to the (oops! yes, 98 homes in this letter dated in 2006-but long after the golf course was gone from the plans!) Lin property development. While they did indeed object to the “biologic losses,” their main reasons for objecting to the plan were that the developers listed no entity to pay for the upkeep of the park (yes, the project submitted to the park district actually included a real 6.5 acre “park” plus the 480 acres of unbuildable open space) and open space and that it went against our own General Plan in so many ways:
• Land Use Element, Policy 12 – “Preserve scenic ridges and views of the Pleasanton, Main and Southeast Hills ridges.”
• Conservation and Open Space Element, Policy 4 – “Protect all large continuous areas of open space, as designated on the General Plan map, from intrusion by urban development.”
• Conservation and Open Space Element , Policy 5 – “Preserve as permanent open space all areas of outstanding scenic qualities or areas which provide extraordinary views of natural and man-made objects.”
• Conservation and Open Space Element, Program 4.4 – “Preserve large blocks of open space by encouraging the clustering of development.”
“The proposed project is planned in a manner that would substantially fragment the existing open space and result in significant disturbance of scenic ridgelines in the Southeast Hills.” (EBRPD, 2006)
As for the Park District remaining mute on the “new” project-is it possible that since the city staff and council let the taxpayers so sweetly step up to the plate to manage the donated property, there was no reason to ask them (EBRPD)to take it on again? (Thanks taxpayers!)
Contradiction: Mayor Hosterman excoriated the Save the Pleasanton Hills folks for not doing enough in their initiative to “really preserve our precious hills” when she’d already ok’d the Oak Grove project which so violated the simple General Plan protections in place now, and at the time. Can we really trust her and her majority’s competing initiative (Measure BS!) to save the remaining hills? I think not.
Anything else you want to check?
And Stacy, since saying you love the environment doesn't mean you have to act to preserve it, you can love nature without being a Jain.
Posted by MainStreetDiva, a member of the Vintage Hills Elementary School community, on Aug 19, 2008 at 10:23 am
My decision to vote against Hosterman is the result of years of disappointment with her style of politics on many issues, not simply from reading comments on a single blog. Her treatment of the Oak Grove issues was the last straw, especially the competing behind-the-scenes plan she and her associates cooked up to counter the initial plan. I am embarrassed to admit that I voted for her.
This thread simply reinforced my decision to help vote Hosterman out of office.
Posted by Becky Dennis, a resident of the Foxborough Estates neighborhood, on Aug 19, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Hi, Diva -
What initial plan are you referring to, and what "behind the scenes" plan do you see as countering that plan? I have a feeling you are misinformed, but I'd still love to hear your version of events and plans as you understand them.
Posted by Jerry, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Aug 20, 2008 at 2:48 am
This in no way pretends to speak for MainStreetDiva, but I'm of the impression she was refering to the Save Our Hills Initiative vs the Council Sponsored Initiative and perhaps her "behind the scenes plan" may have been a poor choice of words for some but please don't think everyone is so niave as to believe private conversations among elected officials, and the like, doesn't take place in private, when they shouldn't.
This isn't everyone's first rodeo, some of us have been around long enough to know different, and, No, I can't provide documented evidence to substantiate my statement but how many times have we heared of instances where the Brown Act was violated. Perhaps willfully at times. I'm not accusing all public officials but it does happen which, unfortunately, leads to distrust by many.
If I'm not mistaken, in the not to distant past, an editorial in the Pleasanton Weekly, or one of the other local papers, questioned whether or not the Brown Act was violated during a meeting held at the City Of Pleasanton Operations Center by a city sponsored "public committee" where only select members were invited. Again, if I'm no mistaken, Ms. Dennis attended the meeting as an invitee.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 20, 2008 at 7:50 am
If the competing initiatives are being spoken of, it doesn't look to me like a "poor choice of words" but the response of someone who is misinformed. The irony to me is that Diva appears so concerned about what she perceives is a "competing behind-the-scenes plan" with complete disregard for how the "initial plan" was created. Double-standard here.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 20, 2008 at 10:57 am
I didn't suggest that the Brown Act needs to be applied to the initiative process. I said there appears to be a double-standard being applied wherein Diva appears to find it acceptable that initiative language is created through private conversation but has an issue when there is the perception that elected officials are creating plans "behind the scenes". We need to hear from Diva though if the competing initiatives are what she was referring to.
Additionally, the initiative process is no more a "peoples process" than deliberative government is. You appear to be repeating the mistaken assumption that the initiative process is solely in the purview of people and individuals with limited resources. That was certainly the original spirit of the process back when the railroads controlled the State Legislature, but "special interest groups" with vast resources have hijacked that process. It is now just as filled with problems as the representative process.
Posted by Mark, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on Aug 20, 2008 at 1:13 pm
The initiative process has been used in Pleasanton to propel otherwise unacceptable political candidates onto the City Council for quite sometime now. The West Pleasnton Ridge Initiative worked successfully to get the "Dream Team" elected several years ago and Measure V was used to get Steve Brozosky and Jennifer Hosterman elected in 2002. Yes, they worked together with Tom Pico in 2002 as a political team standing on street corners together and campaigning as a team.
Now we are seeing a repeat of history. This so called Citizens Initiative is no more than a political tool to get Steve Brozosky elected as Mayor. It has worked before and it is up to us to see that it does not work in this case. The West Pleasanton Ridge Initiative and Measure V were worthy causes, but this thing is purely political and does not have near the same value to our community.
Posted by Jerry, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Aug 21, 2008 at 2:05 am
Even some elected officials seem to feel the initiative process is a good thing - witness our own City Council....:)
Mark - County Fair Neighboehood,
I also observed the "Dream Team" standing on street corners campaigning together(I also saw some members of our present city council standing together on a street corner campaigning against the Oak Grove Initaitive but, unlike the "Dream Team", their position lost at the polls). Since the "Dream team" was elected how could they be considered "unacceptable political candidates", if that's what you were implying. Unacceptable to whom? It would seem the individual voters that gave them the necessary votes to be elected found them acceptable.
Also, could you please explain how the "Citizens initiative""(I'm assuming this is the Save Our Pleasanton Hills initiative)is "purely political" and a "political tool to get Steve Brozosky elected as Mayor". What are the details that would lead one to believe this is, infact, true. I've seen similar language(for example, politically motivated)used time and again by some while debating this subject, with no explaination as to it's meaning. Please be specific so I can finally understand. I'm a slow learner....:)
Posted by Becky Dennis, a resident of the Foxborough Estates neighborhood, on Aug 21, 2008 at 10:56 am
Hi, Jerry -
Yes, I did attend the meeting in question - as did the City Attorney, a well known Brown Act expert), the City Manager, and the Director of Parks and Community Services. Attendees were officers of the Kottinger Ranch HOA as well as trails and open space advocates, and developer representatives. There were no Commissioners or Councilmembers present.
The purpose of the meeting was to address the HOA's request that the public staging area for the 500 acre park be eliminated from the final 51 unit plan. Park advocates wanted to meet with the HOA representatives to see if the staging area could be kept in the final plan. We were very dismayed that it had been removed. The staging area had been in the City's Trails Master Plan for at least 20 years. Originally the master plan had even included several others in Kottinger Ranch. A park with no public access would just be a private preserve for the new homes. The developer came to see what, if any, modifications to their plan would end up being proposed to the Council, and did not offer an opinion one way or the other.
In the end we reached a compromise for a smaller, 11 parking space, unpaved staging area. This modification to the plan was then presented to the public and the Council for review.
This was a meeting between stakeholder groups with conflicting interests, brokered by City staff. It happens all the time, and does not violate the Brown Act. Bringing groups together to craft proposals that reconcile their differences is considered a "best practice" in local government.
Posted by Jerry, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Aug 23, 2008 at 12:43 am
Thanks for your version of what took place.
It seems I was incorrect when I stated this was a meeting of "select members" of a city sponsored committee. From your explaination, it seems it was a gathering of various others that had concerns related to the planning of the project.
I seem to recall a member of a city sponsored committee complained the members of the committee were excluded from this gathering. He felt since the committee was responsible for something that was taking place in the area involved in the compromise(I seem to recall it was some type planning), they should have been invited. This person apparently learned of the meeting and compromise at a Kottinger Ranch HOA meeting, after the compromise was reached.
I also seem to recall the editorial critized the location of the gathering, which left the impression that the gathering was held "out of public view" for reasons known only to those attending.
From your response, I gather no one that should have been invited was excluded, even though some took exception.
If I wasn't lazy, I'd go back through past editions of the PW and find the editorial. Might be interesting reading to compare your version to what was written. I could be mistaken, but I believe the editorial contained remarks from another attendee that critized the gathering.
Posted by Reality, a resident of the Pheasant Ridge neighborhood, on Aug 23, 2008 at 9:42 pm
You lost my attention at "carbon footprint." Seriously, when are people going to stop buying Al Gores' feces filled ideas?
The earth is not going to burn up into a ball of flame because there happens to be some 10,000 sq ft homes built in Pleasanton. Quite frankly, I commend those people that can afford those homes as I am sure they had to work hard to get them.
Also, your 1984 Big Brother attitude is astounding. Back where I am originally from (Pennsylvania), we call the buidling of 10K sq ft homes in your community PROGRESS. You and Al Gore have no right to tell anyone how to spend money or influence the life style that they choose to live. I find it astounding that you cannot see what your attitude represents. I am sure you do not because if you did, then you would have immediately moved to correct yourself. Did you even read George Orwell's 1984?
And before you quote how scientists believe global warming is man made, I asure you that I can quote you how scientists believe it is not (it's cyclical!@!@).
And about the low income housing thing...have you ever lived close to low income housing? I have...it's usually synonomous to GANGLAND. Now I am generalizing (through my experience), but my point is, if people (LIKE MYSELF) want to live in a nice place like Pleasanton to get away from that stuff then it is our right. If people want to live in the typical house in Pleasanton, then LET THEM EARN IT (as I did).
I understand that people with low incomes need a place to live. But don't force communities to build housing just for them when there is a market for higher income housing right here in Pleasanton.
So you want these low income houses to be built closer to work sites. So do I. Because guess what, low income workers most likely won't be able to afford to drive to and from high job opportunity places like San Fran or San Jose.
So, everyone take a stop back. Stop being the neighborhood socialist and let the market take care of itself. Above all, don't get in the way of people pursuing the American Dream.
Oh and the wild hawk thing...that's just weird.
P.S. Before people call me insensitive, I once lived for many years in low income housing. In fact, I had to fight my way into and out of school in Queens, New York (was stabbed once). If you people have ever heard how tough the Bronx was and how tough Brooklyn was, well, the Queens of my day (before Giuliani,sp., during Denkins,sp.) made those places look like, well, Pleasanton.
PPS. (is that how you do it or is it PSS) I also used to live in a third world country for quite a few years, so yeah, I have an idea of what I speak.
Posted by Reality, a resident of the Pheasant Ridge neighborhood, on Aug 23, 2008 at 9:46 pm
By the way,
I am against the development of that area...not because of the global warming carbon footprint low income housing mumbo jumbo. I just like nature...and hunting. Can I hunt in Pleasanton? I see a lot of turkey and deer...mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....deer jerky.
Posted by 40 year Pleasanton resident, a resident of the Vineyard Hills neighborhood, on Aug 23, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Pleasanton Voters: JHos is not unlike all the other elected officials going back to The Dream Team of Pico, Dennis and Tarver. They campaigned on a no growth slogan but when they got in to office they realized that they were elected for the greater good of our community. What is good for all of Pleasanton is what has recently been approved. This is what makes Pleasanton great. Just wait...if Brozosky or any other candidate gets voted in for mayor they will soon be vilanized for serving the greater good of Pleasanton and a no growth suitor will be right behind them to take their place. The cycle continues!!!
Posted by Lisa, a resident of the Laguna Vista neighborhood, on Aug 24, 2008 at 9:31 am
Tarver stayed true to his promises as did Pico while in office.
They worked for the greater good which they saw as slow mitigated growth. Unlike Jennifer they did not take a "your with me or my enemy" style of leadership. They continued to support the public participation process treating those that did not agree with them with respect. They did not arrogantly circumvent the general plan. Sadly Jennifer has made some significant mistakes and lost much of her former support.
I hope she will read these concerns and consider why she has lost the trust of many past supporters. If she wins this election I fear she will continue as she has been.
Posted by Jeanne, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Aug 26, 2008 at 6:32 pm
The planning commission did not certify the absolutely confusing and misleading environmental report for the oak grove project. In spite of this the city council overturned the planning commission's decision to not certify the environmental report, and approved it anyway.
Posted by Matt, a resident of the Jensen Tract neighborhood, on Aug 26, 2008 at 9:09 pm
The developer 'convinced' the city to ignore the fire dangers in exchange for a deal(secret meetings) for the developer to buy the city a new fire truck. The developer also tried to 'convince' the school district to support the project in exchange for a deal for the developer to fund school busing in all of Pleasanton. Thankfully, the school district said no deal.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 26, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Where did you get this stuff? You think the fire chief signed off on the project in exchange for what? That he would exchange his professionalism for a truck? I guess making unfounded accusations is the name of the game.
One can only hope that the people of Pleasanton can see through this campaign of character assassination.
Posted by David, a member of the Walnut Grove Elementary School community, on Aug 26, 2008 at 9:41 pm
To fact checker -- What variety of interests were the city council trying to balance by the mayor appointing the internet guy with the vile cyper-content from the Hosterman campaign to the planning commission?
To anonymous -- The new "wildland fire truck" in exchange for the fire sign-off to mitigate the extreme fire dangers was widely reported in the newspapers, anonymous. Perhaps you can find the cached copies of the articles on google.
Pleasanton hillside battle heating up - ContraCostaTimes.com
Under the Oak Grove development agreement, approved last fall by four of the ... along with $1 million in traffic mitigation fees and a new wildland fire truck. ...
Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Aug 26, 2008 at 10:51 pm
"The developer 'convinced' the city to IGNORE THE FIRE DANGERS in exchange for a deal(secret meetings) for the developer to buy the city a NEW FIRE TRUCK. "
Sounds evil, doesn't it.
Then, David jumps in, apparently to support Matt and states:
"The new "WILDLAND FIRE TRUCK" in exchange for the fire sign-off to MITIGATE THE extreme FIRE DANGERS was widely reported in the newspapers, anonymous."
Gee, suddenly Matt's accusation does not sound so evil. Talk about spin! The NEW FIRE TRUCK is actually a "wildland fire truck" and its purpose is to MITIGATE FIRE DANGERS. Now building those 51 homes out there in the hills sensibly would require some additional equipment, no? The fire officials were just doing their job, weren't they. No "deal(secret meetings)"........
Come on folks, you are writing ridiculous accusations!
(Also, go see the video of the council meeting where McGovern anguishes over her fire danger concern and the fire official's response to it, which was quite sensible and non-political. Back in November when Oak Grove was approved.)
Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 26, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Someone on the school district post suggested if you wanted to know the positions of the candidates, call them, talk to them at Farmers' Market and First Wednesday and then make up your mind.
It seems that the same could be applied to the council and the mayor's race, as well as to the two measures concerning open space. Call those who are running but also call other council members who are not up for reelection. Ask them questions when you see them. If something doesn't sound right or if you want more information ASK. Make them address the issues.
It does take work to be well informed.
Let's stop slinging mud and do what is best for all of Pleasanton.
Posted by iwastheretoo, a resident of the Amador Estates neighborhood, on Aug 28, 2008 at 10:47 am
Guys: Pay attention to what actually happened.
The planning commission did not certify the EIR. They were told that they did not have to deal with the Conditions of Approval or the Development Agreement by Michael Roush, the City Attorney at that meeting. The whole thing then goes to the City Council.
The CC approves the EIR and the Development Agreement and the COA. The Development Agreement and the COA had NEVER been reviewed or vetted by the PC and not by the CC either. It is extremely advantageous to the Developer and, frankly, hoses the City. What the CC should have done was certify the EIR and sent the COA and Development Agreement back to the PC for detailed work and analysis. The PC is not political (have you been to some meetings as I have), they are just trying to keep the same process for everyone. The process that the CC used was WAY out of line. For that reason alone, the whole thing should be referended and the City Council should hang their heads in shame.
Also, BTW, the Kottinger Ranch Home Owners Association (the neighborhood) NEVER approved the deal that was made. It was represented that they had but again, no one fact checked and asked the HOA. So again, very loose and poor staff work...the political process and pressure by the developers overroad all of the processes in this 'Rush to Judgement' and approval of the project.