PC 04/15/96 - Laserfiche WebLink

. '. . . . . Mike Kliment, 5142 Foothill Road, presented overhead visuals regarding the road improvements on Foothill Road between Stoneridge Drive and Muirwood Drive South. Mr. Kliment reque~ted the 1991 alignment plan be included in the General Plan because it is the best solution that can be built with existing development and right-of-ways, it maintains the rural Foothill Road character, and because the number of potential homes along Foothill Road has been reduced. David Ryan, 6837 Via Quito, addressed the Urban Growth Boundary and commented the language indicates it is permanent. He feels it should mirror the Tri-Valley Planning Committee language "long-term line subject to periodic review." In his opinion, periodic review should be every five years. Mary Roberts, 1666 Vineyard Avenue, agrees with the General Plan Update because it keeps the rural character of Vineyard A venue intact. She spoke in favor of the Community Character Element; feels Vineyard Avenue was rezoned, not down-zoned. Ken Chrisman, 1944 Vineyard Avenue, strongly encouraged the Planning Commission not to recommend the 4/5's majority vote to the City Council. This gives the message that litigation is the way to solve problems rather than honor a simple majority. He further opposed changes in the definitions of Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential, changes in growth management levels, and changes in ultimate growth. These are all subverting the needs of the community for affordable housing. As densities are reduced, the trend of higher priced housing will continue. He recommends the densities be left as they are in the 1986 General Plan. He also feels that Vineyard A venue is infill and should be planned as such; referred to Policy 2 and Program 2.1 and 2.2 of the Land Use Element Goals, Policies, and Programs. The South Livermore Valley Plan should be considered in the development of Vineyard Avenue Corridor. He did not ask that his property be annexed, and requested to be de-annexed. Jim Duncan, 617 Angela Street, member of the Circulation Sub-committee, commented that the 4/5's majority vote is disastrous and asked the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council to stay with a simple majority. He also asked to keep the West Las Positas interchange as in the 1986 General Plan or as the Circulation Sub-committee had recommended. Creating another committee to study the issue is a waste of time. It is not wise to remove the West Las Positas interchange; it will provide flexibility in the future. Finally, Mr. Duncan would like to allow vehicular traffic on the Southern Pacific Right-of- Way as recommended by Circulation Sub-committee. Commissioner Hovingh asked Mr. Duncan if Foothill Road had been discussed by the Circulation Sub-committee, and he was advised that it had not been. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 April 15, 1996