CCMIN052896 - Laserfiche WebLink

requirements; the realignment of Vineyard Avenue with bike lanes, trails that connect Shadow Cliffs with the trail system to Lake Del Valle; a ten acre school site, a twenty acre community park, etc. He urged Council to approve the property owners' plan which includes all these amenities. He believed the majority of the subcommittee recommendations were in favor of the property owners plan. Mr. Goodwin opposed the following Steering Committee recommendations: 4/Sths vote for changes to the General Plan; reduction in medium and low density zoning; any cap on housing units or population; and reduction in the growth management. Pam Christman, 1944 Vineyard Avenue, indicated the City could not have annexed Ruby Hill without the cooperation of the Vineyard owners. She reiterated comments made by Mr. Goodwin. The owners have waited many years to develop and now the City is saying they can only have one house per five acres. The area is located between Ruby Hill and the Foxbrough developments and she feels this makes their area no longer viable for agriculture. She feels betrayed by the City. Norma Lemoine, 4456 Foothill Road, opposed redesignation of 17 acres of her property from LDR to RDR or Open Space. She has gone through the Steering Committee to the Planning Commission and both recognized the special circumstances for her property. She thanked the Steering Committee and Planning Commission for their time and consideration of her request to leave the designation as is. She urged the Council to leave the designation as is. Brad Hirst, 1811 Santa Rita Road #128, representing the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce, mentioned eleven points: (1) do not change definition of gross developable acres; (2) do not change the definition of medium and high density land use designation; (3) do not eliminate the West Las Positas interchange (even though this may not be constructed now, it should remain as part of the General Plan for future use); (4) eliminate any regional mass transportation projects or roadway improvements with specific restrictions; (5) eliminate a housing cap of 27,000 units (The Chamber is opposed to any artificial caps on housing units or population not based upon the capacity of infrastructure); (6) eliminate major affordable housing programs through reduction in allowable densities; (7) delete the requirement of a 4/Sths vote to increase the number of housing units or any commercial, office or industrial floor area; (8) eliminate any technical changes in the public facilities element which prohibit or substantially affect the attainment of various water and sewer programs suggested in that document; (9) eliminate the growth management limit of 350 dwelling units per year instead of the current allocation of 650 units (in the last six years, there have never been 650 dwelling units constructed in one year, in fact the average was about 357); (10) eliminate the policy to discourage any drive-through businesses (in order to .have a favorable business climate, it is in the City's best interest to encourage all businesses to apply and there are processes in place for determining appropriateness in any location); and (11) eliminate the urban growth management line, particularly in the east and extending it south across Highway 84. 05128196 -7-