CCMIN070196 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Tarvet asked if there were a way to set aside 21 units on the property if it were to be designated Rural Density Residential. Mr. Swift stated staff is not recommending that. Part of the problem with this property is that the geotechnical studies done in 1985 indicated the parcels proposed for development were not up to the City's normal standards. Additional studies were proposed and they have continued to this time. There are other problems as well, such as access, availability of utilities, high fire hazard area, and visibility issues. Mr. Hirst indicated the owners are aware of the geotechnical problems and fire hazard problems, etc. but those can be dealt with further down the line and should not be addressed as part of the General Plan. Lorelei Tolvtvar, 1993 Greenwood Road, related her concerns about the ability of Pacific Gas and Electric to provide services and related incidents of power outages. Mike Kliment, 5142 Foothill Road, urged Council to preserve Foothill Road at two lanes with a third lane for a turning lane. So long as the General Plan contains a proposal to widen Foothill Road to four lanes, the property owners face constant threat of eminent domain until a decision is made on whether to widen the road. He wants the improvements for Foothill Road as specified in Resolution 91-23 to be implemented in the next five years. The plan specifies a two lane road with three lane cross section which meets the projected traffic requirements at buildout. The right of way has been acquired for four lanes and should be kept and utilized to maintain two and three lane configurations and landscaping with four lanes only if required. Peggy Purnell, 2472 Via de los Milagros, indicated she was a member of the Land Use subcommittee and thanked the Committee for all its hard work. She is in favor of reducing housing final buildout to 27,000 units, not including the San Francisco property. She wants limited new development along the Vineyard Corridor and no realignment of the road along the arroyo. She wants a reduction in the housing planned for south Pleasanton and wants the Urban Growth Boundary as permanent as possible. She felt a 4/Sths vote of Council rather than a simple majority is appropriate to prevent growth beyond the buildout stipulated by the General Plan. She requested that the key aspects of the plan be placed before the voters. Stan Erickson, 3684 Chillingham Court, referred to the eleven town meetings that were held regarding the General Plan and related the concern of many that after so much work on the General Plan, it could easily be changed. He indicated the 4/Sths vote proposal came from the town meetings as a way to prevent that. If Council wants citizens to work on committees in the future, it should support the 4/Sths vote and put the major issues on the ballot for ratification. Wilson Wendt, attorney for several Vineyard Avenue property owners, supported the Planning Commission and staff recommendation. He reiterated the belief that a commitment was made to the property owners at the time of annexation. There was a period of three years when 07/01/96 -5-