CCMIN091686 - Laserfiche WebLink

165 Mr. Van Rainey, represeonting Citizens Land Alliance, 147 Old Bernal Avenue, spoke regarding the Land Use Element; with regard to the staff recom- mendations relative to land use and conservation and open space elements. Significant revisions are being suggested which refer to and facilitate the development of a ~ark by the East Bay Regional Park District. The uses sug- gested for the expanded planning area which contains approximately 20,000 acres concerns him most. Staff has suggested deletion from the general plan of the reference to a potential for development of the scenic planning area but at the same time at the request of the East Bay Regional Park District, has now acknowledged the Park District's plan for active recreational and park district uses in this same area. As a result, the staff suggests deleting reference to the potential of 4,000 additional housing units in 20,000 acres. He stated that if the general plan is going to speak to and reference the Park District's plans that this will require a redrafting of the EIR of the general plan to illucidate the impacts of such a park. The East Bay Park District has passed a resolution to work toward developing a major park with substantial active uses which would have major impact on the City of Pleasanton. The EIR report and the Pleasanton plan exclude any environmental assessment of the very park acknowledged in the general plan, thus the plan and environmental assessment contain no assessment of public services of the proposed park. The environmental assessment is defective in that it reflects a double standard or refusal to acknowledge that the development potential of the property on the Pleasanton Sunol ridge but at the same time an acknowledgement of the park uses without any environmental assessment of its impacts. He suggested strik- ing several sections from 2.17 and 2.19 of the staff report. Mrs. Margaret Tracy, 1262 Madison, Livermore, spoke in opposition to Mr. Rainey, and requested that the recommendations submitted by staff be approved. She stated the Pleasanton ridge and the use of water are very important resources not only to Pleasanton but to the entire Valley. She urged Council to consider the 50 to 100 year impacts. Mrs. Dagmar Fulton, 4536 Mirador Drive, stated she resented people from out of the area telling the City how to plan the City. She stated she has served on several planning committees for Pleasanton and the Valley as well as the East Bay Regional Park District. She felt the Park District should not dictate to the City on how to plan the ridgelands. She stated that the Park District does not have funds to develop the park. She felt the entire matter dealing with the Park District should be deleted from the general plan; it is the people of the Valley and the ridgeland property owners who have the right to plan this area. She added there is nothing wrong with housing on a hill- side. She urged Council to take more time to study this very important area of the City. Mr. Lee stated that with regard to the comments heard there was some mis- understanding about the designation of the land owned by the East Bay Regional Park District as shown on the Central Map; only those acres that are owned in fee simple by the East Bay Regional Park District have been recommended for park and recreation designation. No areas that or under option or otherwise being considered by the Park District are recommended for a change in land use designation. Mayor Brandes stated this was the conclusion of the public testimony regarding Land Use, and it was now in order for Council discussion. After considerable discussion, Council took the following actions: - 11 9-16-86