CCMIN080696 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Michelotti also wanted discussion of the Happy Valley issues. Mr. Roush also indicated an issue has been raised regarding the changes to Land Use Element 11.2, page 4 of the staff report, by a representative of CalMat concerning the choice of the words "non-urban" and extending urban services to areas outside the urban growth boundary. One of the exceptions is for reclaimed land currently designated as sand and gravel harvesting in east Pleasanton when the potential future use is non-urban. The question is whether that should be "non-residential" as opposed to "non-urban". Mr. Tarver suggested discussing each of the above topics, taking a vote on them individually, and then adopting the entire General Plan. Mr. Pico expressed concern that there is an element the limits traffic in residential neighborhoods and the West Las Positas interchange would conflict with that element. He is personally opposed to the completion of the interchange and would prefer that it be eliminated from this General Plan, although it seems that is not possible at this time. He believes the current study is looking at ways to make it happen and he felt the residents would be better served if they were part of the study from the beginning and that there be citizen involvement rather than just city staff. He wanted to be sure the provision for the citizens to do an initiative is included in the General Plan. He also wanted to be sure all alternatives are looked at, rather than just ways to make it happen. Ms. Michelotti felt the scope of the initial study needs to be identified, then the second study can be pinpointed. She suggested amending Program 1.7, first sentence, to read "If after the initial study outlined in Program 1.6, the City Council implements the construction.. ." Then the residents would have one year to process an initiative. On line 8, which starts "Construction may proceed immediately, she suggested "The process for implementing construction may proceed if: (a), (b), etc. She noted Council does have the discretion to amend the General Plan to reflect the initiative measure when presented with a qualified petition, and not go to an election. She hoped that the study done with citizen input addresses every alternative: what happens if the interchange is taken out; what happens in the am/pm commute periods; how does it affect approvals tied to roadway improvements; what happens to the money currently designated for this interchange; what if in twenty years there is a desire to proceed with a portion of the interchange? Ms. Dennis did not object to amplifying the language regarding neighborhood meetings to include citizen organizations or a commission, but she was concerned about the controversy surrounding Council appointed committees. Mr. Tarver also felt a citizens group should do this. He suggesting putting the words stricken from Program 1.6 back in. This will be a well-studied issue and we need to make sure all alternatives and issues related to other parts of the city are studied in total. If there is some way to resolve the problem without the interchange, he felt it would be preferable. 08/06/96 -17-