PC 03/13/96 - Laserfiche WebLink

. . . Jeff Renholts, 7489 Aster Court, who served on the Land Use Subcommittee, stated he has reviewed the Draft EIR as it relates to the General Plan. Mr. Renbolts is concerned that there are a number of alternatives, and inquired who would make the ftnal determination as to which alternative would be put into the General Plan. Section 9, Page 10, Program 4.4 discourages new drive through businesses. The potential air quality impacts of this program should be evaluated in the EIR. Why do we want to discourage drive-through businesses? Circulation 3-17, Policy 14, supports the use of alternative fuel vehicles and the infrastructure for alternative fuel vehicles. He's not sure how this is relevant to the General Plan and what infrastructure would be needed. Mr. Renholts feels this should be a commercial concern rather than a municipal concern. Chapter 4 of EIR -- all pages are incorrectly headed as Chapter 6. Lorelei Tolvtuar, 1993 Greenwood Road, stated her concern about the availability of water for development in the whole regional area. She is concerned about development on the San Francisco property, does not think it is good, and would like to see nothing more than a nature museum and community center on this site. Ms. Tolvtuar is also concerned about the overcrowding of schools at ftnal buildout and believes Pleasanton will need a third high school. Norma Lemoine, 4456 Foothill Road, spoke with regard to the urban growth boundary line. Her property was annexed into the City in 1992 and was given zoning of 17 acres Low Density, 16 acres Rural Density, and 15 acres Open Space. With this zoning, they were allotted 26 units under the 1986 General Plan. Ms. Lemoine feels under the new General Plan, this zoning would still be appropriate. Ms. Lemoine advised that at the last City Council meeting she was informed to pursue this through the proper channels. At the ftnal Steering Committee meeting (March 11th), a recommendation will be coming forward that a majority of the Steering Committee would like the Planning Commission and City Council consider exempting their property from the proposed Rural Density rezoning. She advised that she has as yet not been notifted that this rezoning is being contemplated. Ms. Lemoine feels the decision to rezone the Foothill properties was done in haste at the end of a meeting. She would like to have clarified what the Urban Growth Boundary means. She feels that by making her property Rural Density, the UGB is effectively being placed along Foothill Road. Ms. Lemoine asked the Planning Commission to leave her zoning as it was when they annexed into the City in 1992. In response to Commissioner Hovingh, Ms, Lemoine stated she does not support any of the sub-alternatives for the Foothi11 Road properties. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 March 13. 1996