CCMIN071596 - Laserfiche WebLink

seem to think that putting some of these measures on the ballot sets them in stone. They can be changed by future ballots. If development takes place in open space, that can never change. She felt that those with special interests fear a vote of the people. She felt votes for growth control will please the majority and people can validate that in November. Cindy McGovern, 9206 Longview Drive, wants Pleasanton to maintain its quality of life. She had no qualms about the decisions made on the General Plan or whether they are voted on by the citizens or not. Council has studied the issues and is trying to do the very best job it can. The only thing that bothers her is the Vineyard Corridor area. It is a beautiful area that is important to Pleasanton. She felt the motion on July i was good because the area was put into a study area to look at the most important components and to set this up as a gateway to the community and to the wine country. She hoped Council would remove the 150 unit cap, because if there is a cap of 29,000 units for buildout, there are only certain areas for buildout and those have to fit into that 29,000. There is also a growth management program. She wanted the decision on units to be based on a specific plan, the housing cap, the growth management program, and other studies. She felt it would not hurt in the long run and she wanted the area to have a sense of community and to be part of Pleasanton. She does not want to see a lawsuit, because any judgment would come out of the General Fund and will affect the whole city. John Spotorno, Sycamore Road, supported the idea of a specific plan study for south Pleasanton, especially with the discussion of a golf course and traffic circulation questions. He also liked maximum density instead of maximum parcel size because it allows more flexibility in housing types. He is concerned that if the two-acre density is applied to the 45 acre parcel, it will result in a five acre parcel. He wanted to preserve flexibility from a design point of view. He had concerns about the exact location of the Urban Growth Boundary and the fifteen acres designated medium density residential. He preferred the density to be one unit per acre overall. There was no further public testimony. Mr. Tarver suggested continuing the official action until August 6, when all the minutes can be produced. A final vote would be taken at that time. He wanted an outside attorney to review the resolutions, the responses to the final EIR, particularly with reference to statements that Council has not addressed adequately the environmental consequences of the Urban Growth Boundary. The last thing he wanted Council to do was to take an action that will be successfully challenged. Ms. Dennis asked if the straw vote on a growth management target was subject to the requirement to make findings. If that is included in the General Plan, is it considered different than the existing growth management program. Will we be subject to legal challenge? 07/15/96 - 17-