CCMIN090595 - Laserfiche WebLink

exclude something that might need to be considered. If there is going to be development, it should be in the City and should be City centered; 5) family orientation and concepts related to that should be achieved through goals, policies or programs to reflect the community orientation towards family; 6) The Urban Limit Lines and their placement options should be looked at so that the debate can begin; 7) increased fairground usage and its effect on Pleasanton; 8) the economic analysis of the Committee's recommendations in terms of this Plan, and whether or not it works. Ms. Michelotti stated that there was a recommendation by the Economic and Fiscal subcommittee specifically addressing the Vineyard Avenue infrastructure. There was a recommendation that said if Vineyard Avenue was to be straightened out or put along the Arroyo, it needs the density to support it. The recommendation was to go back to the subcommittee and have a fiscal analysis of certain things, and that didn't happen. When the interchange is addressed at West Las Positas, it will need a fiscal analysis on how it will get built, because it is not included in our current assessment district. Mayor Tarver replied that the interchange was to be built and the North Pleasanton Improvement District is responsible for fronting the money and will get it back as the development occurs. Ms. Michelotti clarified that this was taken out of NPID and the condition is that the property owners only have to front what is their impact or their fair share. Ms. Michelotti asked how to address the question of the super minority. She presumed that staff would come back with pros and cons but not in the environmental document. She would like to see how affordable housing is addressed in the General Plan and how does Pleasanton get it, if high density starts at five units per acre or if the cap is 350/year. The current General Plan says 650 with a bonus of 100 for affordable housing. She asked if the 350 is affordable housing plus 100 or is the 100 counted within the 350? Mr. Rasmussen replied that the 100 is within the 350 figure. Ms. Michelotti stated she would like to see the Happy Valley properties addressed in some way. At the time this came about and the proposed medium density residential at 2-4 units/acre was put forth, was there any density transfer for properties that were not going to have the benefit of that type of designation? Was anything considered for a tradeoff?. In the Vineyard Corridor when it was at the Planning Commission level, there was a reference to wanting to have all these alternatives played out in the EIR. The fact that the properties are in the City of Pleasanton versus some other properties that are not in the City of Pleasanton did allow the annexation of Ruby Hill. If that was not specified, it should be. Ms. Dennis thanked everyone who participated in the process. She wanted a workable plan and understood the people of the Vineyard Corridor wanted the plan they worked on. She felt she had not heard support for that in the community. On the other hand, she would like to see some attention be paid to their difficulties. The recommendation for agricultural on the 09/05/95 -27-