CCMIN080696 - Laserfiche WebLink

Pam Chrisman, 1944 Vineyard, repeated the claims she made at prior meetings regarding annexation of the Vineyard Corridor and her belief there is a commitment to allow development at a certain level. She indicated if the property owners are allowed to develop at a reasonable density, a second parallel road to the east could be constructed next to Vineyard Avenue to relieve the traffic problems. Douglas Chipman, 3170 Kirkcaldy Street, opposed putting measures on the ballot. He did not think the general public could get enough information to know the entire scope of the issues. Sharen Heinz, 1550 Vineyard, repeated the claims of the Vineyard property owners. She opposed putting parts of the General Plan on the ballot. She verbally attacked members of the Council and accused them of misleading the public. Council is allowing development of the San Francisco property at the expense of long time residents of Pleasanton. She believed Council was following the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit of law. Mary Roberts, 1666 Vineyard, supported separating the land west of the landfill from the Vineyard Corridor. She had some sympathy for the property owners to the east and was sorry they had lost money, but that is risk that is taken if property is to be developed. She did not think this Council should honor anything that was not in writing. A1 Spotorno referred to the petition that was presented and felt it represents 70 % of the property owners and 80% of the land area. The Happy Valley area consists of 118 parcels, not 235. If the area is expanded to have 235 it would include Rosepoint, Carriage Gardens and North Sycamore. The average density of the 118 parcels is two acres or less. If you expand the area to 235 parcels, the density is one-half acre or less. There being no further testimony, public comment was closed. Ms. Michelotti corrected the paragraph regarding the Youth Advisory Committee on Attachment 1 to the staff report to read: "Support the Youth Advisory Commission in its study of youth needs in Pleasanton." Ms. Dennis questioned the phrase "where applicable" regarding the archaeological studies. Mr. Rasmussen explained it meant that if cultural resources exist, then provisions for the interpretation of the resources would be provided. Mr. Roush reworded the sentence to say "Include provisions for the interpretation of cultural resources." 08/06/96 -13-