CCMIN090799 - Laserfiche WebLink

Brian McGuire, 233 Del Valle Court, indicated he supported the previous speakers and requested Council to reconsider its decision regarding a development agreement. He reiterated that his property, along with immediate neighbors adjacent to existing city development, should not be included with the rest of Vineyard Corridor. There are no common features between the land west of the landfill and the land east of it. His property was annexed as Low Density Residential and he has never asked for any other zoning or use and has never been anything else in any Specific Plan. He has been delayed for years because of the problems in the rest of the Vineyard Corridor. His property would not be affected by CAPP because it is too small, but now he will be affected because the property will be changed to Agriculture by the Initiative if it is adopted. If Council wants to be fair, it should reconsider its decision and if it cannot reconsider, then please take the west Vineyard area out of this controversy. He asked for a development agreement for west Vineyard area. It has always been designated Low Density Residential, infrastructure has been in place since annexation, capacities have been set aside, and it has been ready for development since 1991. He felt the agreement could be drafted in such a way that it does not affect the rest of the Vineyard Corridor. Carl Pretzel, 3633 Glacier Court, referred to a newspaper article regarding the State Controller's proposal to restructure the sales tax allocation. He said 75% of development has been in the corridor from Benicia to San Jose for the last 20 years. The proposal is that sales tax would not go to the areas that built the businesses, but will be spent to solve perceived social problems that have occurred with development. This effects Pleasanton, Dublin, Livermore, San Ramon, and Danville. There has been very little said about this proposal in any of these communities and he believed that someone should tell the state government that this is a bad idea. It will negate our general plan and land use concepts. He asked for the city governments to take a position and communicate that to the state. Mr. Tarver indicated the proposal was presented to the League of California Cities Revenue and Taxation Committee. The reception was not warm and more information was requested from the State. This is a very complex proposal that tries to keep the status quo but at the same time reallocates new sales tax based on population and encourages construction of housing. The League will consider this again and a position will be taken. Ms. Michelotti indicated this is a concem and will have a dramatic effect on Pleasanton. She referred to the requests for reconsideration on the development agreement and clarified that the motion at the last meeting was to not pursue any development agreements. Reconsideration could only be requested by one of the three members who voted in favor of the motion. She asked if any member would reconsider the motion. She also asked if that reconsideration was necessary before any separate action was taken regarding Mr. McGuire. Ms. Ayala indicated she wanted to discuss something under Matters Initiated by Council but not reconsideration. Pleasanton City Council 8 09/07/99 Meeting