PC 07/28/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

noted that she would support leaving the word "appearance" in poll y 1, and would support language that would allow Pleasanton control over the area that can be seen from Pleasanton. She noted that the Program 3.1 needs to be reworded to better de e "public access." She supported the deletion of the reference to the 600 acres in the north est corner of the Study Area and the reference regarding "golf courses." She also would li e to see the ability to provide incentives for open space/trails. If the Council places this . sue on the ballot, it is her understanding that it would supersede Measure M. Commissioner Hovingh stated that the 600 acres in the northwest c rner of the Study Afea should be excluded from the boundary. He suggested that Program 3.1 include language allowing "foot access" only, and prohibiting parking. He queried to whether item 6 on page 7 should refer to unoccupied lands, and if Union City should e included in the Agreement. He stated he does not endorse the "Land Use Agfeem t." He noted that he felt EBRPD should be included as a signatory body. (Mr. Swift no that EBRPD has no land use authority.) He stated that he is generally in concurrence .th item 7 under "Boundary Adjustments," but that the spheres-of-influence should n t intrude over other political boundaries. He recommended that item 10 under" Access Public Lands" be deleted, noting that only foot access should be allowed, and that in tem #12 "Foothill Road" be deleted. Commissioner Hovingh noted that he disapproves of the joint land se agfeement concept. He stated that if there is an agfeement, the area needs to be limited to a smaller area within the Ridgelands. He indicated that he felt the reference to Hayward' "best efforts to detach the properties" was not good enough, noting that he would not be i terested in working with Hayward unless it detached the properties. He encouraged the incl sion of a "sunset clause" in the "Land Use Agreement," and that the County be given one y to enter into the Agreement. He expressed concern that an economic cost benefit ysis had not been done. Commissioner McGuirk stated that he would like the voters to mak a choice between the Measure M and this new measure. He noted that he is not comfo ble with the "Land Use Agreement," nor is he in favor of any regionalism. He stated that e does not feel getting involved in multi-city agreements is in Pleasanton's best interests. e supported the inclusion of a sunset clause, as well as a dissolution process that all ws parties to dissolve the agreement if there is disagreement. He stated that he would lik to see the General Plan Amendment boundary go to the top of the Ridge and include the w sterly boundaries of those properties. He advised that he would like to see access by bicycles and by foot, with no roads. He felt staging areas below would be appropriate and advi that he would not support a golf course. He supported the elimination of the 600 ac s in the northwest corner of the Study Area. He commented that the plan lacks detail. He r ommended that the City Council put the initiative on the ballot. The voters should have the opportunity to vote, but that they should also be able to decide if they want to eliminate M ure M. Commissioner Hovingh reported that he had spoke to Commissione Finch and that Commissioner Finch was opposed to the "Land Use Agreement," d he suggested that if the City wants to control the face of the Ridge, a bond measure should placed on the ballot to obtain funds to purchase the land. Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1993 Page 10