CCMIN090595 - Laserfiche WebLink

the current policies relating to business fees. It did not feel it was appropriate to add more fees and felt it would put Pleasanton in a commercial disadvantage with other cities. It believes the current modified growth management plan is working. The Committee does not approve the 4/5 vote for amendments to the General Plan. It felt that it sets up an opportunity for a minority to inhibit opportunities for economic development. The current simple majority has worked well and should remain in place. The Committee asked Council to reconsider the proposed changes in medium density residential and high density residential. The proposed designation of 2~4 units per acre and five or more are not consistent with the good planning practices and will have negative effects on existing neighborhoods. The change will have a negative effect on affordable housing. The Committee supports the mixed use concept development in the BART/Hacienda area. It recommends the City enter into a cooperative specific plan process with the City of Dublin and with BART and create a plan that works for the maximum benefit of all the communities and the BART agency. Ed Boule, 3735 Rose Rock Circle, spoke regarding the Open Space Element. He felt it is important to encourage businesses to attempt to locate in Pleasanton and should be evaluated on a case by case basis. The Committee asked Council to evaluate how user fees are assessed for residential and commercial. The Committee felt the fee should be based on impact. New development should pay its fair share to be equitable, whether it is a residential or a commercial project. This will make Pleasanton a business oriented place for the economic development of the area. Mr. O'Brien stated that the Council has Prop. 13 weighing heavily on the ability to provide municipal services. At the same time, Council has a heavy responsibility to meet the needs and desires as expressed by the citizens of Pleasanton. The Council needs to leave itself enough flexibility with changing conditions, yet deliver the type of community the citizens of Pleasanton want. The concern is if the General Plan is not looked at from that perspective, there may be some recommendations that tie Council's hands in the future and will not allow it to react timely to changing conditions. He asked that Council consider the proposed mitigation measures for the environment and subject them to fiscal analysis so that Council ends up with a document that is workable and usable. Frank Berloger, 2200 Vineyard, stated he was a member of the Housing Subcommittee. He felt the agricultural belt between the Vineyard Corridor and Ruby Hills was a tradeoff by one property owner who developed 850 homes and put part of the acreage aside for agriculture. He felt the Vineyard properties shouldn't be given a new agriculture zoning designation without the owners' approval first. He felt the General Plan review was not achieved by due process, but was a sham by a no growth/slow growth majority on the Steering Committee. After the entire process was complete and before the Planning Commission considered the recommendations, a minority report was presented. The minority report was signed by five of the people who voted for most of the majority recommendations. If those five people voted for the majority of the issues how can they take a minority position? After two years of deliberation and 10,000 hours, the Steering Committee met and changed the density of the number of units allowed for medium density, high density, and some low density. The Housing subcommittee voted to support the 09/05/95 -22-