CCMIN070196 - Laserfiche WebLink

4. MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC Debra Barker, 2947 Chardonnay Drive, requested the landscape project for the median on Vineyard Avenue be moved forward in the CIP budget. She objected to private company logos, specifically Ruby Hills, appearing on City of Pleasanton signs. She then introduced her daughter, Saundra, who will be three years old in August. When the General Plan review started, Ms. Barker was pregnant with her. Many people have volunteered their time to complete this General Plan review and she hopes Council will soon complete the General Plan update. Steve Sherman, 4751 Sutter Gate Avenue, representing the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce, spoke in opposition to placing parts of the General Plan on the ballot in November. He believed it was Councirs responsibility to make decisions for the City. The City Councilmembers have the best knowledge to make informed decisions. The average voter has no time to review all the material necessary. The Chamber was also opposed to the proposed super majority (4/Sths) vote for changes to the General Plan as a minority of two could prevent action by the majority. Tom Mooers, representing the Greenbelt Alliance, supported the Urban Growth Boundary. This would encourage development within city limits and preserve the greenbelts surrounding cities. It would also limit the pressures of land speculation and protect current taxpayers from subsidizing services for future sprawl. He supported having the Urban Growth Boundary being voted on by the people. Ms. Michelotti asked if the Greenbelt Alliance believed that in-fill property should be developed within the Urban Growth Boundary. Mr. Mooers indicated that was an important component and referred to recent actions in the City of San Jose. The Alliance has an In-fill Committee that works with cities to promote responsible, pedestrian/neighborhood friendly, in-fill development. Ms. Michelotti referred to the San Francisco Water Department property and suggested the Alliance may want to comment on that in the future. Don Temple wanted to hear a presentation from Mr. Rasmussen before his comments were made. Mr. Tarver proposed to proceed through the recommendations of the Planning Commission, Attachment 1 of the staff report, item by item. He indicated the public hearing was closed and he wanted Council to make decisions. Mr. Temple wanted to give testimony on the changes that had been made with regard to the South Pleasanton area. 07/01/96 -2-