CCMIN070196 - Laserfiche WebLink

monthly meetings were held, reports drafted to Council and the owners spent over $200,000 in the planning process. He urged Council to think about its obligation to the public and to support the proposal for low density development in the Corridor. Michael Goodman, 1630 Vineyard Avenue, felt there was clear intent to allow development of the Vineyard Corridor. He supported Alternative 7 for the Corridor and went on to reiterate his prior comments regarding his belief there was a commitment to allow reasonable development in exchange for agreeing to annexation. Jim McKeehan, 6612 Owens Drive, referred to the discussion on the number of units to be allowed in the Vineyard Corridor. He felt this was the wrong focus. It should be on what can be done to augment and support developing vi~culture in the South Livemore Valley. He was more concerned with the transition from Pleasanton to the South Livemore Valley area and felt it was more important that the entry feature be preserved than on the number of units. It all depends on how the area is planned. With regard to whether to put items on the ballot, he felt planning for a city was very complicated, which is why there is a planning staff and numerous consultants. It is not a good idea to isolate a project and circulation must be considered in light of the entire city, not one little area. Council is the best to make the overall decisions. Finally, on the issue of the housing cap, long hours of work went into developing the new growth management program to insure that infrastructure would be available when development occurred and to take care of the backlog. He felt there was enough flexibility under that plan to accomplish the goals the constituents want Council to accomplish, whether it is one unit a year or 650 units a year. Dorene Paradiso, 3168 Paseo Granada, thanked staff for its job and supported the staff recommendations. Pam Chrisman, 1944 Vineyard Avenue, indicated she did not want to be part of any new General Plan. She wanted to keep five acres of her property to live on and wanted to be able to subdivide the rest. She repeated prior assertions regarding this area. Dave Jones, 1605 Rose Avenue, referred to the staff recommendation to remove the arroyo from calculations of gross density. He then referred to the proposed Character Element of the new General Plan and felt it was superfluous. I-Ie believes it is an additional layer of government for regulating development or housing additions. David Glenn, 5650 Foothill Road, supported putting potions of the General Plan on the ballot. Mayvonne Gardty, 1870 Tanglewood Way, felt the General Plan was the City's constitution. The federal Constitution is there to guide our lawmakers. The General Plan should be there to guide the City Council, not the reverse. We have heard from the people that there is concern that the document can be changed too easily by the Council. The basis of all the 07/01/96 -6-