CCMIN070196 - Laserfiche WebLink

town meetings was to be sure the General Plan was a document the people want and a lot of effort was put forth to get their input including a. survey. She felt it is important that the investors of this community, the taxpayers, should be able to make a long term commitment and have some assurance that the plan will be respected and followed as much as possible. She supported puffing portions on the ballot. The community wants an urban growth boundary, 350 units a year maximum, an ultimate buildout figure, and that Council cannot rewrite what the community has asked for. She urged Council to put the issues on the ballot. She heard discussion about the property on Foothill and the possibility of approving 21 units in order to get 200 acres of open space. She felt the community does not want Council to trade perks for development. If we want more open space, we will find a way to pay for it, but we do not want more units and the impacts, such as traffic on Foothill Road, that come with it. Pat Murray, 4470 Miradot Drive, referred to the three years of work in reviewing every aspect of the General Plan. She also felt the General Plan was the constitution of the City and should not be changed by a simple majority of Council. Regardless of changes on the City Council, the General Plan should stay as adopted until the next review of the General Plan. During the next ten years, Pleasanton will have changed and the next General Plan committee can review the Plan in light of what has been built to that date. She felt changing even one aspect of the General Plan could cause a domino effect. She urged Council to insure that a vote of four, not three, councilmembers be required before any amendments be made to the General Plan. A1 Spotorno, requested Council to consider the ramifications of the voting on critical General Plan issues. Pleasanton expanded its sphere of influence to over 11,000 acres. He felt it was grossly unfair for Council to make decisions on properties that double the current size of Pleasanton when the people in the sphere of influence are not allowed to vote. Sharen Heinz, 761 Wall Street, Livermore, referred to the fact that only 300 people attended the town meetings on the General Plan and that does not represent the entire City of Pleasanton. She agreed with the staff recommendation for Alternative 7 regarding the Vineyard Corridor. She felt that even though this Council did not make commitments to the Vineyard property owners, it was still obligated to uphold prior agreements. There was discussion on how to proceed and it was determined that it would be best to proceed in order on Attachment 1. 07/01/96 -7-