CCMIN052896 - Laserfiche WebLink

Jerry Lemm, 17 Greens Lane, representing the Economic Development Committee for the Pleasanton Chamber, noted that many of the Committee's suggestions were also stated by the Planning Commission. This is a General Plan that should be flexible. Irmeli Vatanen, 1504 Redwood Drive, Los Alms, manager of the Lin property (33 acres on Vineyard Avenue), commented on the feasibility of agriculture in that area. She contacted the University of California Extension Service. She was told that viticulture is not supported on that property because the soil is not of the proper quality. Other row crops, such as flowers, etc. generally would not be financially feasible. There is much competition from other areas and many small growers are having financial problems. The general agreement from everyone she consulted is the area is too small to have financially feasible agriculture. The only businesses that could be successful would be poultry or pigs. The other problems would be agricultural runoff of fertilizers and pesticides into the arroyo. Kay Ayala, 4515 Gatetree Circle, was a member of the General Plan Steering Committee, indicated she was in favor of the Planning Commission recommendations. It was always said at the General Plan Steering Committee meetings that at any point the Committee could reconsider any of the recommendations made up to when the final draft is sent forward. Several votes were taken with the understanding that the matter would be reconsidered once all the information was in from the various subcommittees and other committees in Pleasanton. When the subcommittee recommendations came before the Steering Committee, the votes of the Steering Committee was sometimes different than the recommendations of the subcommittees. The important point is that when the final recommendation was sent forward to the Planning Commission, City Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Development Advisory Committee, to all citizens in Pleasanton and the General Assembly of the General Plan Update Committee, the process was for all the above to comment on the report for later consideration during the draft General Plan review process. We were given all of the information and we thought we would go back to a final Steering Committee meeting. At the March 11 meeting we were to review each chapter of the draft General Plan, but that did not happen. The Committee sent forward the report with no oppommity to vote on changes. She quoted various comments that basically said "Let the Planning Commission and the City Council decide* or *Most of the important issues will be on the November ballot. * Ms. Ayala questioned why she spent three years reviewing the General Plan when the important issues were to be put on a ballot. She felt Council had a special weight on its shoulders. The process did not work. She whole-heartedly agreed with the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Frank Berlogar, 2200 Vineyard Avenue, indicated he was a member on the Housing Subcommittee of the General Plan Review Committee. To say that the Steering Committee did not follow the subcommittee recommendations is an understatement. He was told by a member of the subcommittee that he came to the process to vote for no growth. Mr. Berlogar did not believe this was *due process*. It was a waste of time and process. He spent hundreds of hours on this and after a remark like that, he felt slighted. He referred to a large map of the Vineyard Corridor area and pointed out the boundaries for the South Livermore Valley Area Plan. The 05/28/96 -8-