CCMIN080696 - Laserfiche WebLink

that should be provided is the restoration of the arroyo as a recreational and wild life habitat. He supported formation of a committee to draft a specific plan for the area and if a plan came forward starting at the low end of units, that provided for restoration of the arroyo, he could support it. However, he did not think that could happen in the near future. He felt it will be impossible to restore the arroyo within the next ten years because of the quarry operations and it is too early to develop this area. He felt the Steering Committee recommendations were good and provided a starting point for discussions on what can develop in this area, bearing in mind that the Steering Committee and General Plan process has already recommended approval of more than adequate in-fill areas (with lower infrastructure costs) that will accommodate all the reasonable amount of medium density residential development anticipated during the life of this General Plan, ten years. There is no housing need in Pleasanton at this time to develop the Vineyard Corridor. He believes the General Plan is acceptable and has undergone hundreds of hours of review and testimony. For someone to accuse Council of ramming the Plan through is a joke and an insult to the members of the committee. He urged Council to adopt the General Plan with a couple of modifications. He wanted the West Las Positas interchange removed from the General Plan. He supported voting on key issues of the Plan and believed the voters are capable of making informed choices. He disagreed that the voters would be swayed by spending a lot money on an election and cited the Kottinger Hills referendum as an example. Mike Demas, 969 Sycamore Road, presented colored maps of the Happy Valley area to Council and displayed a transparency demonstrating lot sizes. He referred to the proposal for a two acre average density in the area. He did not like the proposal because it allowed more density in some areas and less in others. He wanted the area kept as a rural community without having dense populations in some parts of it. He mentioned the petition signed by 60-70 % of the residents who opposed the two acre parcel. He referred to the map showing the sizes of existing lots and stated that 57% of the area is already less than two acres and he did not know where the idea of a two acre minimum came from. It seems that a few people who own small lots are trying to say what the large landowners can do with their property. One point raised was that people want the area rural and to be able to keep horses. He said this is not really a good area for horses. The large parcels are privately owned and permission must be given to ride on the land. You see a lot of people riding along the streets. What is really needed is some kind of equestrian trail or other area. These people can buy the land for that kind of enterprise if they want. There is also a desire of the community to preserve the scenic view of the mountains. As the land is currently designated, a house can be put on every five acres and with the proposed plan, the area will be built up anyway. He felt keeping the area as scenic undeveloped land will not happen. It would be better to have one home per acre than to allow heavy density along the roadways. That will block the view of people already living in the Happy Valley loop. He referred to a letter from Bill Tooracy, who opposed one home per two acres or a general density of the same because it allows too much building in small areas. Roger Smith, 6344 Alisal Street, supported approving the General Plan as it is currently written with a specific study of the Happy Valley area. He replied to the comments of Mr. Demas and indicated there are about 45 homes represented on the petition. There are 215 homes in the Happy Valley loop and 130 are represented by the Alisal Improvement Club. He strongly 08/06/96 - 11 -