CCMIN061396 - Laserfiche WebLink

in Kay Ayala and related an incident where he gave her an opportunity to speak and she refused. With regard to the Vineyard Corridor, several alternatives were presented for the area and he was told the minimum number of units to pay for the infrastructure was 500 units. The Steering Committee was told on more than one occasion that the Vineyard owners wanted 700 units or nothing. He tried to visualize where the units would go and where the road would be realigned. There was not much room left and felt it would require a lot of high density development. He was surprised that tonight they proposed 410 units to pay for the infrastructure. No matter what Council does, it will be criticized and he urged Council to vote on the General Plan and move it onto the ballot. The special interests are afraid of the voters. Mr. Bentley objected to personal attacks. He left some meetings because there was a 9:30 p.m. time limit and he stayed until 10:00 p.m. Good decisions cannot be made at the late hour. Michael Goodwin, 1630 Vineyard Avenue, indicated he served on the Land Use Subcommittee. The Subcommittee was told it could revisit the Steering Committee recommendations but this did not happen. He felt if the Steering Committee did not agree with the subcommittee recommendations that they just ignored them. Vineyard Avenue was the last study area that was discussed with the Steering Committee and was done in a hurried fashion. The Vineyard Avenue owners were not allowed to work out an acceptable plan with the Steering Committee. It did not like any of the prior plans and simply voted on the least amount of development. The Vineyard owners have been working with City staff for six years and have relied on that guidance. City staff came up with the 750 units and when Council changed, staff said 480 units. He believed the reason the infrastructure is so expensive is because of the poor planning of Ruby Hill. They were told City staff would prepare studies regarding the cost of infrastructure and they still do not have information. Mr. Goodwin then reviewed the modified Alternative 7 proposal as discussed by Mr. Wendt. He objected to the recent decision for the City to pay for the design guidelines for the San Francisco property. The Vineyard property owners have had to pay for everything and he feels they have been taken advantage of. He referred to conversations regarding water service to that area and there is still no water. There are times when he runs out of water. He referred to the Roberrs' property and indicated the modified alternative 7 plan would assist them to preserve their agricultural use. The Safrenos already have a two acre parcel and everything around them is zoned 20 acre minimum. He didn't blame them for wanting to preserve a greenbelt, but that does nothing to protect other people's property rights. He believes the Vineyard Corridor is in-f~l and should be developed accordingly. The South Livermore Valley Area Plan designates this as a transition area and encourages development in the transition areas. He urged Council to review the modified alternative 7. He believed the Urban Limit Line was arbitrarily drawn and should not bisect parcels. I-Ie objected to comments by David Glenn about how the land use subcommittee voted on various options and that the Steering Committee did not receive the details of the various options. The majority of the subcommittee voted 480 units and none of that was told to the Steering Committee. He felt a majority vote will not mean anything anymore if the proposed 4/5ths vote is enacted. That is 80%. He strongly opposed a 4/5ths vote. 06/13/96 - 10-