CCMIN102699 - Laserfiche WebLink

open space, and loss of confidence in elected and appointed officials to make the right decisions. Measure D cannot and will not stop overall growth. We will simply have less ability to grow in an orderly manner. It makes no sense to replace coordinated City planning and development with piece meal votes on piece meal projects. If you restrict the supply of housing, company CEOs will begin to look elsewhere. Jobs do follow housing. The Board of Directors of the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce voted unanimously to oppose Measure D because it is bad for business for those already here and those that want to expand or relocate to our community. Measure D does not solve any problems, it creates new ones. Jack Dove, 3263 Vineyard Avenue #114, referred to the Busch property, which had involved many months of meetings and negotiations to get a plan that was satisfactory to the City and the neighbors. A group of eight people representing the neighborhoods around the project had been appointed to a committee. Seven of the eight recommended approval of the plan. One person did not and proceeded to sponsor a referendum of the proposal. The Council denied the project based on that referendum. This measure takes city planning out of the hands of the elected officials and gives it to a popular vote. Changes to the Constitution are carefully considered with a lot of debate and they don't happen often. Most people do not want to change the way the country is govemed. The State has numerous propositions, one of which was Proposition 13, which changed property taxes. The problem with that is once adopted, the propositions cannot be easily changed and there is no way to fix the inequities. He believed the same situation exists here with Measure D. Within the last year, the voters had the opportunity to select three of the Councilmembers and could have chosen to make a change. They chose to reelect the Councilmembers. In another year, the same opportunity will be available and the voters have more control through Council elections than by approving Measure D. He felt Measure D would be a disaster for the community. Mark Armstrong, 279 Front Street, representing the Spotomo Family, referred to the tabling of the Preannexation Agreement at the last meeting. He requested allowing staff to bring back on the November 2 agenda a revised annexation agreement. He felt the primary concern of Council with the earlier draft was that vested rights for development would be given to the Spotomos for ten years without a specific development plan being before Council for consideration. At the last Council meeting, Council and staff stated opinions that a workable plan could be developed for the Spotorno Ranch. The Spotornos indicated they were prepared to accept a revised annexation agreement that would provide vested rights only if they commit to an early development application process. That means the revised preannexation agreement would include a term that requires a preapplication process, workshops, etc. to get consensus for an application that would be submitted, so we don't have to wait until the end of the process to find out if the plan is acceptable. Thereafter, an application would be filed within a specified period of time. This would provide for an early completion of the bypass road. He referred to the section of the Specific Plan that requires every effort being made to complete the bypass road within one year following completion of the east/west collector road through the Sycamore Area. He believed the proposed approach meets the intent of the Specific Plan. On the other hand if no annexation is approved and Pleasanton City Council 6 10/26/99 Minutes