CCMIN101999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Currently any project approved meets the high standards of the City staff, Council and Planning Commission. Passage of Measure D would throw these high standards out the window and projects would be approved based on political rhetoric and emotion. Jim Pease, 4863 Canary Drive, felt that failing to plan is equivalent to planning to fail. We learned that early in life with homework assignments. It is an important principle that all successful individuals, families, communities and governments have in common. The attractive city you see today is a result of thoughtful planning. He understands what drafters of Measure D are after. He is not fond of traffic or the declining air quality, but complicated problems are not solved with simple solutions. Measure D is a simple solution to a very complicated problem. Measure D radically and irreversibly changes the way we plan for the future of our city. If Measure D passes, we will introduce a highly emotional and political agenda to a process that in the past has been very well handled by a capable city staff and an award winning General Plan. He advised people not to make decision based on emotion, but to look at the facts and consider the impacts. This Initiative subverts the planning process and doesn't offer one solution. Ken Chrisman, 1944 Vineyard Avenue, read a portion of the argument in favor of Measure D from the voter pamphlet. He then referred to the actual Measure's purpose and intent. He concluded there is no linkage between Measure D and the Council or Planning Commission approval process. He believed that Measure D is so poorly worded it will insure full employment for lawyers. He urged everyone to vote no on D. He related an incident regarding a campaign sign that was placed on his property without permission and indicated the sign had been tumed into the Police Department. Pam Chrisman 1944 Vineyard Avenue, said she wanted a development agreement as promised ten years ago. In the mid-80's a subdivider had an option on a large section of what is now Ruby Hill. He asked for one house per five acres and agreed to plant grapes. Friends of the Vineyard objected and the developer withdrew his application. The land was sold and the a new developer received County approval for more than ten houses per five acres. So there were many more houses than what was originally submitted. She then related the annexation and approval process to date in the Vineyard Corridor. Now the CAPP Initiative will change the area to agriculture for at least twenty years. She pointed out that although farm animals were raised on her property, the Cotmty said the area was not agricultural enough to qualify under the Williamson Act. We are all owners of small parcels and are not rich. We do not have the money to pay for an election and send out campaign material as a larger developer would. The larger parcels like Staples Ranch, Busch property and the San Francisco property will be developed under County regulations and then Pleasanton will not be able to control the properties or get income from them. The current General Plan has growth controls and does not require County properties to annex as agriculture. This gives the City negotiating power. CAPP supporters say a countywide initiative will pass and stop county development. She did not believe that was true. Pleasanton City Council Minutes 10 10/19/99