CCMIN071596 - Laserfiche WebLink

arbitrarily drew a line to make a permanent urban growth limit line without consulting the property owners or viewing the property. Now you want to put this permanent line on the ballot, so if it passes, future citizens will have to go to the expense of a ballot measure to change something that should have the review of a duly elected City Council. Why can't you make this line an advisory line? The value of her home has increased significantly since 1974 because of the development in Pleasanton, not the lack of it. Property values increased because we have a 100 acre sports park, a magnificent library, a state of the art senior center, Stoneridge Mall, and Hacienda Business Park. She was not suggesting Pleasanton should continue to develop at the same rate as in the past. She felt the most significant development has finished and this Council is presiding over the last phases. She felt everyone probably expects buildout at a similar number and she felt Council was being petty about what is left. The previous General Plan was an award winning General Plan. It studied the zoning in existence, put a cap on growth and at the same time respected all previous commitments. It worked from the bottom up. The current General Plan recommendations assumed the growth was too much and set a limit. It worked from the top down. In order to realize the reduction, it drew an arbitrary line, and reduced the value of certain properties. She urged Council to vote on the General Plan as it sees fit and represent all the people. You get her input and input from the same 50 or 100 people. Council represents 57,000 people. Do what you think is right and if the citizens don't like it, they can circulate a referendum. Her views on the General Plan are known and she believed that those people who disagree with her either don't bring up the subject or don't talk to her. She felt the same thing happens to the City Councilmembers. She did not think anything regarding the General Plan should be put on the ballot. Pleasanton is known for its great community spirit and ability to come together for its citizens. She felt this proposed General Plan is divisive and self-serving. She urged Council to use a non-confrontational strategy if it wants to create permanen~y preserved natural landscapes. Deborah Kleffman, 3010 Paseo Granada, supported the 29,000 housing unit cap and supported the urban growth boundary concept, as well as putting General Plan issues on the ballot, when they are initiated by the people. She suggested that those who want an item on the ballot, collect the signatures and do the work, and she would be pleased to vote on the issues. She did not like the issues being placed on the ballot from the top down. The State mandates periodic review of General Plans and the intent is not to lock items in for perpetuity, it must allow for flexibility to respond to changing conditions in the future. She did not think it appropriate to label the General Plan as Plcasanton's constitution. She opposed the 4/5ths vote requirement and thanked Council for abandoning that issue. She was offended by the attempts to lock its decisions in place so a future Council cannot make changes. It is not the message of this Council she objected to, but rather the methods. She did not agree with the "strawdog" argument that Council just wanted the voters to ratify its decisions. Frank Berlogar, 2200 Vineyard Avenue, indicated he was here to address the 150 unit cap, however, he wanted to comment on one of the new elements of the General Plan, the Community Character Element. He felt that putting a cap on units in the Vineyard Corridor before doing a study and specific plan was to say Council did not trust the citizens of 07/15/96 -11-