CCMIN071596 - Laserfiche WebLink

Jerry Lemm, 17 Greens Lane, indicated this interchange has been in the General Plan for many years and he is sorry many residents are surprised by this. He agreed the matter needed more analysis; however, if that interchange is not in within the next five years, traffic will be a disaster. Everything in the North Pleasanton was planned with the assumption that interchange would be built. He strongly supported the construction of the interchange. He then addressed Council on behalf of the Economic Development Committee of the Chamber of Commerce. This review has taken three years and it has been a long, hard process. The Chamber opposed any artificial caps. How can you say today what can be done five or ten years from now. He did not believe that sewer capacity and water supply should be used as a growth management tool. Wilson Wendt, attorney for some of the Vineyard Avenue property owners, spoke about fairness. He and many property owners were at the July 1 meeting and thought them was a determination made on the Vineyard Corridor. Today we find out that at July 9, a meeting we knew nothing about, that the July 1 determination was changed substantially by "clarification". We thought the procedure was to make determinations on July 1 and the matter would come back on July 15 in the form of a resolution with formal findings. He read the motion from the July 1 Minutes which was unanimously adopted. If this matter was reconsidered on July 9, he believed it was done improperly and illegally. The rules for reconsideration were not followed and none of his clients had been given notice of the meeting or that this would be reconsidered. The motion was changed considerably by imposing a 150 unit cap. He indicated that this was not done properly and if Council formally adopts this change, he will file a complaint for a violation of the Brown Act. That portion of the action relating to the 150 unit cap should be deleted. As a matter of good planning practices, it is ludicrous to include the cap. No one knows what the infrastructure will be or what other uses will be considered. Mr. Tarver stated it was made clear to the audience that straw votes would be taken to give the public an idea of what the Council was thinking in terms of adoption of the General Plan and every Council person reserved the right to change his/her mind after the public hearing. The intention was to make sure that everyone knew the Council position before tonight's meeting, so if you did not like the decisions, you could comment on why you did not think it was appropriate. Mr. Roush indicated there was no violation of the Brown Act. Council was considering in totality all the General Plan amendments on July 1, July 2 and July 9 and the matter was on the agenda in the broad sense of the term. More importantly, the Council decisions on the 9th provide an opportunity for members of the public affected by decisions to come tonight and speak. Nothing would have prevented Council from reaching the same decisions tonight after the public had given testimony. Ms. Micheloff stated the Minutes of the July 9 meeting are not before Council. 07/15/96 -9-