CCMIN061396 - Laserfiche WebLink

owners deserve consideration as to what is fair for them. He agreed a few homes should be considered in the South Pleasanton area to help with costs for the land to build a golf course. He did not support extending Rose Avenue because of safety and traffic problems. He strongly supported the concept of a hotel/convention facility near the fairgrounds and possibly a pedestrian bridge to the fairgrounds. He believed more commercial buildings will be necessary for all the businesses that are being attracted to Pleasanton. Rick Nelson, Project Manager for the San Francisco Water Department's Bernal property, responded to comments on the General Plan update. He presented a letter to the City Council. The primary concern is the proposal to reduce growth management allocations to 350 units per year. The current program allows discretion to address any deficiencies in availability of infrastructure or public services and he urged Council to keep the current program. If Council approves the lower number, it is requested that the San Francisco property be exempted from that program to allow an agreement to be reached for development of the project in Plea__~nton. He felt that was appropriate because of the self-mitigating aspects of the project, e.g., conveyance of a school site in advance of payment, if necessary, to insure timely completion of the school facility, payment of school impact fees, dedication of a fire station site, dedication and improvement of neighborhood and community parks, inclusion of an affordable housing program, payment of regional traffic impact fees, payment of regional open space fees, participation in providing recycled water to the project, maintenance of LOS D or better on project streets and affected City streets, conveyance of necessary right of way along Arroyo de la Laguna to allow implementation of regional storm drainage improvements, incorporation of a golf course storm drain bypass channel to accommodate regional flood control needs, inclusion of on-site storm drainage to yield no net runoff increases to the Arroyo de la Laguna, possible assignment of water right entitlemerits to the City of Pleasanton, incorporation of convenient access to public transportation, and a public golf course and clubhouse facility. Ken Chrisman, 1944 Vineyard Avenue, opposed the 4/5ths vote indicating that courts have regularly rejected this. He referred to comments on preserving family values and felt some of the concepts were detrimental to family values, such as the gross developable acres concept that does not allow transfer of development from hilly areas to lower areas thereby reducing available housing and increasing the price. The density defmitions also do this because by reducing the density ranges, it narrows the range of family incomes that have the opportunity to reside in Pleasanton. People may not be able to afford a house in Pleasanton because it takes too much land to build a house. There has been much talk about the General Plan Review Committee and its process and his only comment was that as an individual that spoke once or twice at committee hearings, he felt the Committee was more like a grand jury when someone was supporting growth. He believed Pleasanton has a representative government. Council is elected to carry out the actions necessary for the business of the City and it is Council' s decision to handle that and not refer items to members of the general public. Finally, Vineyard Avenue has blind entrances from driveways to Vineyard and it is difficult to get onto Vineyard due to increased traffic from Ruby Hill. He encouraged the realignment of Vineyard and use of existing Vineyard as a bike trail or access to individual existing homes. 06/13/96 -8-