CCMIN080696 - Laserfiche WebLink

would not have attended all the meetings for the Vineyard specific plan without direction from the City. Mr. Rasmussen indicated staff was given general direction to work with the Vineyard property owners to develop a specific plan. At the beginning of the General Plan update, the Council asked that the Vineyard specific plan go to the General Plan Steering Committee for review. Ms. Vatanen indicated it was never stated that the specific plan would be reviewed as part of the General Plan update process. She did not think anyone would have spent the money for the specific plan if they had known that. She also objected to the fact that the subcommittee recommendations were not adopted by the Steering Committee. Sue Markland Day, California Alliance for Jobs, Jack London Square, Oakland, indicated the group's opposition to placing any element of the General Plan on the ballot. She believed that the planning procedures in the State of California are excellent and effective. There have been a tremendous number of meetings for citizen input on Pleasanton's General Plan. Once a part of the General Plan is on the ballot, a special interest group could change that and she felt if enough money is spent, the voters' opinions can be changed. It would be a mistake to put these issues on the ballot. She felt it would allow other groups from outside to make changes -- and the citizens will lose control. There was a break at 8:55 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:07 p.m. Michael Goodwin repeated his earlier comments regarding the Vineyard Corridor. Carl Chrisman, 4167 Torrey Pine Way, Livermore, indicated his parents should have gotten something in writing regarding development of the Vineyard Corridor. They should not have agreed to annexation without a guarantee of development. He repeated the claims of other Vineyard property owners. Now his parents' property is next to major development, there is more traffic on Vineyard Avenue, which is creating a dangerous situation, and they no longer have the open space they once had. They have to live with the development impacts, but cannot develop their own property. He felt that was unfair. This Council should abide by prior commitments. Geoff Cooper, 7534 Flagstone, indicated that when the Vineyard Corridor issue came before the General Plan Steering Committee, the property owners had presented a plan. Staff presented a compromise plan. The property owners derided the plan and said they would not accept anything but their own plan. Mr. Cooper objected to 800 units with no provisions for restoration of the arroyo or other amenities in the area except road improvements. He felt the property owners had poor legal advice which led them to believe there was some commitment from the City. In the long term, the area will be developed. He felt one of the vital amenities 08/06/96 -10-