CCMIN090595 - Laserfiche WebLink

and the people not happy with the recommendations to the General Plan Steering Committee have their own special interests involved. Ms. Michelotti asked for clarification on the Economic and Fiscal subcommittee work versus the recommendations that came from EDAC. Ms. Hosterman stated the Economic and Fiscal subcommittee was put together to look at a fiscal element in the General Plan. The other committee was formed by the City in an effort to enhance the business atmosphere, encourage new business to come to Pleasanton, and to help them get started. Mayor Tarver stated that he wanted to get away from developers, no growth proponents, slow growth proponents, special interest groups, and labels that are attached to people because they don't see things the same way. There's nothing wrong with that. It's part of the process and input that goes into this for the right decisions to be made. The Economic Advisory Committee has been involved with this as much as the Planning Commission, the City Council, and the subcommittees, etc. Bill Wentworth, 1157 Happy Valley Road, owns five acres and his neighbor has 45 acres. The land is agricultural but the last 33 acres has been zoned open space. His elderly neighbor asked him to express how upset she was that these 33 acres were rezoned open space and her front fifteen acres was down-graded to two acres per home without her consent or knowledge. He stated they would like to have the same zoning as the J. Patrick Land Co. property. Ken Chrisman, 1944 Vineyard Avenue, asked if one of the alternatives for the EIR would be to take the Vineyard Corridor and Ruby Hill and consider the detachment. He thought this property and Ruby Hill have polarized the community. Dave Jones, 1605 Rose Avenue, commented that Rose Avenue has been funded three times but has never been completed and probably won't be considered until the year 2015. Rose Avenue will be needed to alleviate traffic when the San Francisco Water Dept. property is developed. He contacted the Fair Board and it is not interested in the extension of Rose or Valley Avenue. Mayor Mercer in 1989 went to the Fair Board asking for the road to go through and it was rejected. Studies have been recommended for relieving traffic off Division St. and St. Mary's. He felt the gross developable acres in the General Plan is ambiguous. He owns ten acres which are zoned R-10,000 and nine of them in the creek. Does that mean he can have thirty homes on the one acre? He stated a General Plan is just that, general. Mayor Tarver stated that there should be alternatives on Rose Avenue. He thought condemnation might take place, otherwise the Fair Board will never let that road go through. The question is will Council ever consider condemnation or is this issue through. The General Plan should say what the community really needs and wants in it and not put in artificial barriers. 09/05/95 -24-