Laserfiche WebLink
Al Spotorno, Sycamore Road, wanted Council to consider the location of the Urban <br />Growth Boundary and its impacts on the South Pleasanton area. He presented his letter and one <br />from a neighboring property owner. <br /> <br /> Larry Butler, 7325 Altura Place, Oakland, appeared as President of the Alameda County <br />Land Use Association, a group of property owners outside the city limits of Pleasanton. They <br />contend that the Council has made illegal land use decisions regarding their property. They <br />believe that only the Alameda County Board of Supervisors has jurisdiction of their property. <br />When the City Council takes action regarding their properties, the only recourse is through the <br />courts, since they cannot vote for the Councilmembers. He believed the Urban Growth Boundary <br />exceeds the authority of the Pleasanton City Council. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti inquired if he was referring to specific property within the UGB. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buffer indicated a portion of his property near the Garms property is included within <br />the Urban Growth Boundary. <br /> <br /> Steve Brozosky, 1700 Vineyard Avenue, indicated he was upset because he has not <br />received any notices or staff reports and wanted to be sure he was on a mailing list. The <br />Vineyard 'S* curve is a dangerous road with a lot of traffic and it is getting more difficult to <br />come in and out of his driveway. He believed there was an implied commitment to allow <br />reasonable growth in the Vineyard Corridor. If no development is permitted, he felt Council <br />should reimburse the property owners for the $200,000 spent on the specific plan. <br /> <br /> Bill Wentworth, 1157 Happy Valley Road, indicated he was speaking for himself and <br />Daphne Christensen, his neighbor. Her grandfather was one of the founding fathers of <br />Pleasanton and he has lived here for 30 years. She has 43 acres and 30 acres have been <br />designated open space and 13 that is designated for two acre sites. He bought property in <br />Pleasanton thirty years ago for his retirement goals. He felt changing the designation has <br />devalued his property for long term investments. He wanted to have homesites for each of his <br />children and now cannot do that. Council is considering a golf course and giving relatively new <br />residents a lot of money and the fight to build 21 homes, yet not giving anything to the Happy <br />Valley residents. He felt Council was taking away his fights and giving the golf course property <br />owners the scenic benefits of Ms. Christensen's 30 acres of open space with no compensation <br />to her. He felt Council was taking away their retirement security and urged Council to leave <br />the land use designation as it is. The Housing Cap can control growth without changing the land <br />use designation. <br /> <br /> Marie Cronin, 8989 Dublin Canyon Road, indicated she opposes some of the General <br />Plan concepts. The Urban Growth Boundary should not be on the ballot. It is Council's <br />decision and to put it to a vote is a cop out. The public cannot know what the future brings and <br />should not be forced to go back to a ballot to change the General Plan. She objected to the <br />proposed 4/5 vote. She felt if there were an urban growth boundary, it should be the same as <br /> <br />07/15/96 <br /> - 15 - <br /> <br /> <br />