CCMIN071596 - Laserfiche WebLink

Pleasanton. It does not believe that an issue can be evaluated and have reasonable proposals prepared by the citizens. He believed that says bad things about the Community Character. He urged Council to set an example and say it still believes in the democratic process and that it trusts people and will work for them. Robert Lang, 7580 Olive Drive, remarked on the fact that several people spoke for and against the West Las Positas interchange and Mr. Swift referred to effects without the interchange. He wanted to speak about the effects on the area with the interchange. At eight o'clock in the morning there is a parade of children crossing the street on their way to Lydiksen School. There are 64 children who live south of the intersection. This interchange would be unique because all other interchanges are in commercial or open space. West Las Positas would be the only one that enters an existing residential neighborhood. He urged Council to resist as strongly as possible the construction of this interchange. The damage the interchange would do cannot possibly be compensated for by any other benefits to the rest of the city's transportation needs. Michael Goodwin, 1630 Vineyard Avenue, indicated the property owners of the Vineyard Corridor strongly oppose adoption of the revised General Plan because they believe a contractual arrangement was made at the time of the Ruby Hill annexation. The 150 unit cap is not reasonable for the area and does not allow study of the alternatives for the area. Some of the General Plan subcommittee recommendations were not considered by the General Plan Steering Committee. A unanimous vote was taken on July 1 to put this area into a study area and a specific plan was to be developed. He was unaware of the July 2 or July 9 meetings. He stated there is a goal in the General Plan to zone in~ll areas at densities to promote development and he felt the Vineyard Corridor is in~ll. He objected to the fast track process of this matter and was upset that minutes of previous meetings were not available in a more timely manner. It took three years for the review committee to do its work and Council is pushing this through so it can get issues on the ballot. He felt the Vineyard Corridor had become controversial because of a couple of hundred units and at the same time the San Francisco Water Department property will add up to 2200 units. He referred to the suggestion of studying other uses, but felt Council wanted 150 units period. He stated if Council wanted to avoid litigation, it should take off the cap and study the area again. The property owners have been studying it for six years and staff has put thousands of hours studying the area. He has seen over 20 different maps with varying uses. Lorelei Tolvtvar, 1993 Greenwood Road, agreed with putting items on the ballot. She also asked if staff had considered the comments regarding the Muwekma Indians. Mary Roberts, 1666 Vineyard Avenue, referred to the request of Ms. Michelotti for a soil survey of the Vineyard Corridor area and she produced a copy of a study previously done. She also referred to the numbers of animals and plants in the area and felt important issues had been left out of the previous specific plan. The soil report talks about gravelly loam and the maps indicate most of the big vineyards are located in the gravelly loam areas. She said the 07/15/96 - 12-