PC 02/12/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

~ plan that was presented in the ridgelands information did not prope ly address the needs of the avid golf-playing citizens that she had contacted. She conclud that she would like to present her negative vote for the ridgelands plan. Debra Scherrer, 30261 Palomares Road, Castro Valley, represen ridge. She felt they had a different view point of the plan than PI there were a lot of negative impacts in regard to development to th residents of her area and Castro Valley. She did not feel the plan as proposed protected the 1-580 view at all and that it should be screened from view. She did not think that the west . dge would be screened from Castro Valley's view and she felt this might be a problem. S e was concerned that Palomares Road and Palo Verde Road would be chosen as an III s to the hills and she was not in favor of that. She felt that should development take place i the hills that people would be going to Castro Valley which would increase their traffic She further felt that the plan as presented precludes EBRPD's plan for the area. She urg that Pleasanton not accept the plan, but that they work with the EBRPD. Maudalene Marshall, 1405 Elliott Court, said she had served on th Executive Committee. She urged that the Commission support the Executive Committee's decision to support the plan as presented. She stated she is in favor of putting the plan 0 the ballot in June and that support of the plan was in the best interest of all the citizens of PI ton. Bunny Ginn, 6390 Palo Verde Road, Castro Valley, said she felt i was important to - remember that over one-half of the Executive Committee and full mmittee were landowners in the ridge or their agents. She expressed concern th t development of the ridge would adversely affect Palo Verde Road residents and Castro Vall yand that these areas could become a primary access to the ridge. In addition, she had ncerns about how the ballot language would be presented to the voters, noting that Meas re M and N were very confusing. She urged that ballot language be carefully considered. Joan Tenbrink, 4265 Mirador Drive, Pleasanton, stated that as a ember of a subcommittee she felt that she had been abused and did not get an adequate op nity to express her views. She felt that the committee should not have met on holida s, as these are the times when she wanted to go away with her family. She also felt that me of the rules of the committee were not fair, in that only three absences were allowed' she noted that she thought the committees would meet only for three months; however, it tu ed out to be 10 months. Janet Cristiano, 4184 Creekwood Court, Pleasanton, lives next to she was on the Executive Committee; she supports the plan as pr plishes the goal of Measure M. She felt that the plan is ready to oothill High. She stated nted and feels it accom- o on the ballot in June. ~ Geoff Cooper, 7534 Flagstone Drive, Pleasanton, said after thinki g about the process he felt the whole thing was just a slap in the face of EBRPD and the wor of their master plan, which has been in place for years before this plan ever showed up He felt that EBRPD supplied more benefit to the Bay Area than any other agency and e expressed support for their master plan. Minutes Planning Commission February 12, 1992 Page 17