Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />. , <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Prank Neu, 18210 Carmel Drive, Castro Valley, advised that he owns property falling within <br />the General Plan area. He finds the maps are unclear regarding the Master Plan for <br />community trails. Most trails are on land not within Pleasanton, and this will force the land <br />values down. The speaker would like this taken out of the General Plan, feeling it is not <br />within the City's sphere of planning. He advised that anyone opposed to the General Plan <br />should prepare to take it to court. <br /> <br />Larry Butler, 7325 Altura Place, Oakland, President of Alameda County Land Use <br />Association, feels their civil rights were taken away by the MOU agreement among <br />Hayward, Pleasanton, and Alameda County regarding the Pleasanton Ridgelands, and feels <br />the General Plan is heading in that direction. They successfully sued against the Ridgelands <br />MOD Agreement, and the General Plan may force them into another litigation against the <br />City. In response to Commissioner Hovingh, the speaker feels the General Plan takes away <br />their civil rights and their land uses. <br /> <br />Wilson Wendt of Miller, Starr & Regalia, representing Vineyard Avenue property owners, <br />highlighted some of the points in his letter of March 26, 1996, sent to the Planning <br />Commission. Mr. Wendt feels there is a contractual obligation between the City and the <br />Vineyard Avenue property owners. In 1991, the City sought the annexation of the Vineyard <br />corridor because it would create a link with Ruby Hill. The Vineyard property owners <br />entered into a consensual agreement that they would not oppose the annexation, and the City <br />agreed quid pro quo that reasonable density would be afforded to the corridor. The City <br />made every land use decision from 1991 through 1993. The results of many monthly <br />meetings between City staff and the property owners are reflected in the April 1993 Vineyard <br />Specific Plan. This Specific Plan is cited in the General Plan Draft and EIR. The speaker <br />stated that the property owners reimbursed the City the consultant fees for the Specific Plan <br />EIR. Mr. Wendt feels the Vineyard Specific Plan is drastically different from the General <br />Plan Update. He feels the Specific Plan developed a reasonable density for the Vineyard <br />corridor (684-700 units). The General Plan Update only designated 100 units. He does not <br />feel this is "reasonable density" and does not feel this is consistent with the good faith <br />agreement between the City and the property owners. <br /> <br />Secondly, under the Specific Plan, Vineyard Avenue was to be relocated for safety and <br />aesthetic reasons. The General Plan Update does not call for the relocation of Vineyard <br />Avenue. Mr. Wendt advocates the General Plan Update should require the relocation of <br />Vineyard Avenue. <br /> <br />Thirdly, the General Plan does not treat this area as an infill area. IOOll areas are to be <br />ascribed a density similar to and consistent with surrounding property. The density <br />surrounding the corridor is Medium Density and Low Density (Ruby Hill). Mr. Wendt feels <br />the Vineyard corridor should be given the same density as surrounding areas. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />April I, 1996 <br />