CCMIN052896 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Vitz felt the issue is the proposed designation of Park and Open Space, which would not permit a public or community facility. Low Density Residential does provide for those kinds of community facilities, which is what the Park District wants as an option. Ms. Michelotti asked if Rural Density Residential would accommodate the same thing? Mr. Rasmussen indicated it would, or the property could be designated Public and Institutional. Mr. Tarver asked if the Park District discussed that option. Mr. Vitz indicated it recommended keeping LDR, but any option that leaves open the community and public facilities is what the District is interested in. Frank Brandes, 6889 Corm Sonada, strongly supported the Planning Commission recommendation to retain the three vote requirement for changes. I-Ie opposed the Steering Committee recommendation for a 4/5ths vote. He felt this is a society based on majority rule and to require 80 % to make a change is beyond reason. He felt this was bad government. Mr. Pico asked if Mr. Brandes would support having key issues of the General Plan put to a vote of the people? Mr. Brandes felt some issues could be put to a vote, but you can't consisten~y run a government by a vote of the people. They elect officials to make decisions for them. However, anything put to a vote of the people will be decided by a simple majority. Our system works with majority rule and he felt 80% was not within any normal realm of responsible government. Wilson Wendt, Miller, Starr & Regalia, One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1600, Oakland, represented seven property owners in the Vineyard Corridor. He presented letters representing their position on the General Plan Update. His clients represent 180 of the 368 acres that the General Plan identifies as the Vineyard Avenue Corridor. The biggest problem with the General Plan Update is that it is inconsistent with the South Livermore Valley Area Plan (SLVAP) and would make implementation of the SLVAP impossible. He felt the FiR is inadequate and the number of land use changes contemplated will have environmental effects which have not been analyzed. The reduction of density could affect the jobs/housing balance, transportation, etc. He is very concerned that the State Department of Housing and Community Development letter (regarding the Housing Element) was not responded to as part of the CEQA documentation. Even though it was not submitted as comments on the EIR, he felt a number of the comments dealt with CEQA issues that should have been considered. Mr. Wentit further indicated his belief that there is an equity issue arising out of the annexation of the area, but other property owners will address that later. In 1990, the Vineyard Avenue Corridor was the key to annexing the Ruby Hill area. His clients feel there was a 05/28/96 -4-