CCMIN080696 - Laserfiche WebLink

Plan, because the initiative removes the authority of the City Council to implement changes. Ballot box zoning is being fought in the courts in Napa, Monterey and Stanislaus Counties and will ultimately be decided by the California Supreme Court. We do not need a court battle over our General Plan or defeat of an initiative which will invalidate the General Plan. He urged Council not to put the proposed General Plan initiatives on the ballot. Ken Chrisman, 1944 Vineyard Avenue, related statistics from past elections referring to the percentage of voters electing Mr. Tarver, Ms. Dennis, and Mr. Pico. He stressed Council should represent all the people of the community. He believed the Vineyard property owners had been betrayed by the City of Pleasanton. He reiterated their claim of a previous commitment. He wanted to remove the 150 unit cap on that area and be treated fai~y. Michael Goodwin, 1630 Vineyard Avenue, felt a majority of the Council was ignoring recommendations of the Planning Commission, staff, South Livermore Valley Plan, majority of subcommittee recommendations and the minority report of the General Plan Steering Committee. Ms. Dennis proposed hotels and restaurants for this area, but that is not included on the map. He felt staff time was being wasted studying a specific plan with a 150 unit cap. There can be no project at that level. The property owners have spent much time and money developing a specific plan with 480 units. He urged approval of 480 units. He felt Council was trying to push approval of the General Plan to get initiatives on the ballot and felt the General Plan was flawed. This Council has spent too much money on litigation. He believed that the City cannot annex property and then put a limit on the number of units and felt that was a taking of property. If Council wants to stop growth, stop annexing property. Debra Barker, 2947 Chardonnay, indicated she is also a Vineyard Avenue property owner and she did not believe that any comment had ever been made at a public meeting that promised additional densities in the area. Mr. Roush indicated there is no written agreement, preannexation agreement, or official action of Council that indicates there is a contract for a specific number of units. Ms. Barker indicated she had attended many meetings and has been following this for five years. No promises were ever made and Council should stop listening to the complaints of some of the property owners on Vineyard. She urged Council to continue with approval of the General Plan. Gail Thompson, 4453 Clovewood Lane, referred to the study to be done regarding the West Las Positas interchange and asked what triggers the beginning of the neighborhood meetings? Mr. Tarver indicated a study is being done of the traffic impacts and if it is determined that the only way to mitigate those impacts is by construction the West Las Positas interchange, then a second study will begin which will include the neighborhood meetings. 08/06/96 -8-