CCMIN090799 - Laserfiche WebLink

Dorene Paradiso, 3168 Paseo Granada, indicated she was in favor of controlled, well-managed, slow growth and fairness. She was disappointed that the pleas of the Vineyard property owners fell on deaf ears. She asked Council to reconsider its vote on a development agreement for this area. Sharen Heinz, 1550 Vineyard Avenue, indicated she has an interested buyer for her property with a beautiful project. No one would eat flour, sugar, etc. but mix them together and you have a cake. We cannot have a good town or well-thought out General Plan or Specific Plan without all the ingredients. All the Council voted on the Specific Plan. She contacted Stan Erickson (a proponent of the CAPP Initiative) and asked why the Vineyard Corridor was to be converted to agriculture. Mr. Erickson said he would confer with the group as to whether he should come to Council to support the Vineyard Specific Plan. She did not believe the voting public had the time to make an intelligent decision. She urged Council to reconsider its decision. She has worked hard on this process and she strongly supported local government. Michael Goodwin, 1630 Vineyard Avenue, congratulated the Tri-Valley Vision Project for continuing its work even though there are initiatives on the ballot that could change that work. Good planning decisions should not stop because of possible initiatives. Pleasanton is currently changing its entire planning process because of an initiative on the ballot, which has not been adopted. He said he was speaking for several Vineyard property owners and asked Council to reconsider its decision on August 23 regarding a development agreement for the Vineyard Corridor. Only two areas requested development agreements: the Vineyard Corridor and Happy Valley/North Sycamore area. It would be much easier to draft a development agreement for the Vineyard Corridor because there is a detailed Specific Plan. It doesn't need expedited PUD's, tentative maps, and there are no residents fighting annexation. The public hearing on this issue did not start until 1:00 a.m. at the last meeting and several property owners had already left. The Vineyard Corridor has been delayed by Council a number of times and is now being delayed again because of the Initiative. For the first time in ten years, all the pieces are in place for this project. RMC Lonestar has cooperated and has offered to deed the road right of way. One Councilmember said businesses have to cooperate with the City in order to do business, but what about the City's cooperation? There is also a proposal to fund the infrastructureto get the road in place prior to opening the school. The current road is unsafe because of high traffic volumes during rush hour and cut through traffic. Traffic will only get worse when the school opens. If the road is not realigned, the ambiance of the gateway to the vineyards will be lost. If a development agreement is not adopted and Lonestar decides to mine the site and not provide the property for road realignment, all the work and planning will be lost. Does the City have another plan for the road alignment or do we go back and do another Specific Plan? Many property owners are reluctant to spend any more money without a guarantee of this project being built. A development agreement is necessary to preserve this rural area. He felt that twenty years from now, there will be more housing units than the currently approved 189-unit plan. He asked Council to authorize staff to negotiate a development agreement for the Vineyard Corridor. Pleasanton City Council 7 09/07/99 Meeting