CCMIN121179 - Laserfiche WebLink

..... alternative to its present course of development-by-development amending of the General Plan the coalition group intend to pursue the following course of action: (1) referend any adverse General Plan amendments which are not in the interests of the citizens of Pleasanton or which do not represent a consensus of their view, thus it will place your actions squarely before the voters; and (2) if forced to repeatedly referend adverse amendments the coalition group will consider using the initiative process to allow the citizens to specify how they would like to see their City planned. Mr. Innis reiterated his acute concern about continual amendments to the General Plan, stating it needed stability, and urging Council to formulate the proper com- mittee to review the General Plan so that it will meet the needs of the City. TC Councilmember Mercer reviewed the history and work of the citizens general plan '~ committee that was involved in the 1972 study of the General Plan, stating that '7 approximately 300 persons were originally involved but that it finally dropped down ~ to 20-30 people involved in the review. He stated he would not be opposed to the formation of such a committee now but reminded the audience that the General Plan is meant to be 'general'. He added that such a review requires an inordinate amount of City staff time, which we are short of. Mr. McGovern stated there were 9 mandated elements in the General Plan and he suggested that three of these be reviewed every year and address the needs of the community. He stated he was opposed to 12 general plan amendments per year. Mayor Brandes stated that the general plan amendments have been made for the benefit of a great many people. He stated that each change is carefully analyzed in light of the growth rate and sewer capacity. He added that some of the general plan amendments were initiated by the City, some by citizens, and some by developers. Councilmember Butler stated he did not disagree with the objectives expressed by the coalition group and he felt the General Plan should have stability. He stated he was concerned about asking the citizens of Pleasanton to spend lots of time reviewing the General Plan on a continual basis, after having served on the review committee in 1972. Mr. Innis again reiterated his concern about 12 general plan amendments in one year, stating that if other cities could get by with fewer changes he felt Pleasanton could also with better planning. Mr. Howard Neely, 448 Amador Court, presented a chart to Council regarding sewage capacity in the City, projecting future use to 1998. He stated he felt a citizens group should discuss this matter or that the City hire an in-house engi- neer to review sewage capacity. Mr. Neely stated that if all proposed permits were hooked up at this time, that sewer allocations would be 75% used, and he felt this matter should be studied. Mr. Leo Heckathorn, 4202 Stanley Boulevard, stated he felt the building being constructed on Santa Rita Road was sub-standard. He also requested Council to investigate an illegal parking situation on the east side of Santa Rita Road. Council instructed staff to look into these matters. Council discussion ensued regarding policy on the General Plan amendments. Councilmember Mercer asked if there would be no more General Plan amendments until after review by the citizens committee recommendation on this matter. He 6. 12/11/79