CCMIN080696 - Laserfiche WebLink

purged proceeding with the specific plan to get all the views of the residents. The two acre density was a compromise. Many wanted more or less density. He also supported having a few key issues on the ballot. Ms. Mohr asked how large his parcel was. Mr. Smith said it was three acres. Gene Finch, 8019 Jorgensen Lane, believed staff had done a remarkable job of dealing with this and previous Councils and others. He was concerned with the current leadership of the community. Council has wanted to get lots of information and public input, but then it failed to make a decision. There are three major issues regarding the General Plan: the San Francisco property, the Vineyard Corridor and the West Las Positas interchange. A lot of money and coun~ess hours have already been spent on the West Las Positas studies. The city is experiencing more and more litigation. He felt the City of San Francisco was forced into the steps it is taking because the City of Pleasanton refused to take action. The Vineyard Corridor situation was created because Pleasanton wanted to have Ruby Hill. He personally did not think it was worthwhile and believed that there were commitments to the Vineyard owners, whether in writing or not. He did not think members of this Council were doing the best for Pleasanton, but only following personal agendas. David Glenn, 5650 Foothill Road, indicated the General Plan review was done by over 200 citizens. The 29,000 housing cap and Urban Growth Boundary came from that group, not the Steering Committee. These issues are not set permanently in stone, but only for ten years until the next General Plan review. There were comments about traffic on 1-680. The Dublin Canyon Road and Foothill Road intersection is also at LOS E. With the opening of Sears he felt it will go up to LOS F at peak hours. He also cited traffic problems in Dublin. These problems will only increase with the development already approved. He urged no further development approvals until the effects of the current units are demonstrated. He was in support of putting the housing cap and UGB on the ballot. That will be the best way to represent all the voters. Don Redgwick referred to comments about putting the items on the ballot. He felt those people do not know what the initiative process is about. If the General Plan is put on the ballot and approved by the voters, Council will not be able to go back and eliminate the West Las Positas overpass, or do anything about the Vineyard Avenue Corridor. These items can only be changed through another initiative. Mr. Roush indicated the only items to be on the ballot will be the Urban Growth Boundary and the housing cap; the entire General Plan is not intended to go before the voters. Therefore, issues regarding West Las Positas, Vineyard Avenue, etc. can still be changed by a vote of the Council. 08/06/96 -12-