CCMIN080696 - Laserfiche WebLink

low density designation for the last decade and no one is seeking a change; the annexation is the only common denominator for the land east and west of the landfill; the area of controversy is to the east. Those on the west side do not have the same issues as the property owners on the east side. Separating these areas will simplify the equation and focus time and energy where the problems are. He realized there is the possibility of litigation and the property owners to the west do not want to be part of that. Mr. Tarver asked how the property could be involved in the infrastructure required to develop the area if the land west were removed from the Vineyard Corridor? Mr. McGuire believed the infrastructure was already in place and as the "S" curve is straightened, it will complete what is necessary to serve his area. Ms. Mohr asked if the property owners to the west would participate in the "S" curve improvements. Mr. McGuire said yes and they will pay more because of the utilities that will be brought to the properties. Bob Thompson, 4454 Clovewood Lane, spoke in opposition to the West Las Positas interchange. He felt public safety should always come first. Having a freeway offramp directly into a residential neighborhood will cause safety problems concerning children and residents. Martin Inderbitzen, 4218 Casterson Court, referred to remarks by Mr. McGuire. He indicated he had represented the Nevis family which owns property immediately adjacent to the Hatsushi property, and he agreed there are enough differences that this property should be separate from the rest of the Vineyard Corridor. Margaret Lake, 5250 Case Avenue, urged Council to set aside three acres for a church on the San Francisco property. Don Redgwick, 1632 Loganberry Way, indicated he has lived here 31 years and has always voted and tried to keep informed about candidates for Council. Conversely, he has not studied the General Plan in detail nor tried to be informed on the many issues that come before Council. He had neither time nor inclination to become knowledgeable about the General Plan and become comfortable with an issues. He opposed ballot box planning. It is a poor substitute for representative government. The staff, Planning Commission and City Council spend hundreds of hours on a plan; the average voter will vote based on the mail or the best slogan. Pleasanton is a great city with a fine City Manager and staff. He is pleased with past accomplishments of the Council and its predecessors and he sees no reason to abandon what has worked well. He felt the proposed initiatives will place the Council in an advisory role in the future. There is a stigma of distrust on future Councils, Planning Commissions and city staff. There is nothing in the City's past that warrants this action. He believed the initiative violates the statutory responsibility of the City Council to periodically review and update the General 08/06/96 -7-