CCMIN061396 - Laserfiche WebLink

Freda Collins, 367 West Angela Street, indicated her family has been in this community since 1908. She and her husband have been very active in the community and she related the services to the community provided by her husband. They own land on Foothill Road with several other partners and hope that something could eventually be done with it. They had a permit for 35 houses, then that was cut it to 20, and now the recommendation is for only 8 or 9 houses. She felt that because of their longevity and service to the City that they deserved some additional consideration. Don Kallenberg, 2431 Crestline Road, indicated he was a co-owner with Freda Collins, and believed that the land and its topography will dictate what logical development can be done. There is 230 acres and only 149t; is below the 670 foot elevation. Additional studies are necessary to determine what is appropriate. He strongly urged retaining the current General Plan designation. Michael Kliment, 5142 Foothill Road, representing himself, Pat Wood, the Starns, and the Noonans, referred to a letter he had presented to Council relating to the history of the alignment of Foothill Road. He indicated he and others spent about ten hours walking the neighborhood to gather over 200 signatures opposing Foothill Road becoming a four lane road. They want to preserve the heritage and country character of Foothill Road. He referred to the improvements already made to Foothill Road which have improved the safety of the road. He strongly supported three lanes, including a two-way turning lane. He felt a four-lane road would promote growth, encourage traffic, and rain this scenic corridor which is part of Pleasanton's heritage. The Foothill homeowners have consolidated nine driveways to make the interim plan possible and have worked with city staff to create a workable solution that avoids the cost and impacts of a four lane road. Of the people contacted, only nine said they would not sign because they wanted more information. That is a 20 to 1 ratio of support for this. If the four lane option is included in the General Plan, there will be a threat of condemnation for his land and that of the Stares until the City determines if the widening is necessary. That is unfair to the property owners. He asked when Council will actually be discussing this matter. Ms. Acosta indicated June 25 was the scheduled date, but there is a request from Ms. Mohr to change that date due to her unavailability. The new date at the end or June or early July will be advenized. Wilson Wendt, a lawyer representing property owners in the Vineyard Avenue Corridor, indicated they had prepared a modif'~ed alternative 7 which addresses issues raised in this process and presents what they believe to be a reasonable land use for the property in the Vineyard Avenue Corridor. He reiterated what the property owners believe is a fairness issue. Ruby Hill could not have been annexed without the consent of the Vineyard property owners and they believe there was a commitment made to them. He referred to a paragraph in the staff report written by Mr. Roush regarding the lack of a preannexation agreement with the Vineyard Avenue Corridor residents. Mr. Wendt believed the City felt there could be no annexation agreement with the Vineyard residents because all the agreements and preannexation documents 06/13/96 -4-