PC 07/28/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

regarding a road up the face of the Ridge, noting that she also has concerns, but that she understands this reference means there will be a staging area. Sh asked that Mr. Swift give an explanation as to the differences between a "joint powers agree ent" and the "Land Use Agreement." She also responded to Commissioner Hovingh's sta ment that not enough time had been given to the Commission to act on this issue, noting that over $100,000 had been spent on the preparation of materials for the Ridgelands Commi to study this issue and that the Planning Commission had received and reviewed pertinent documents. She stated that with the Planning Commission's experience, it should be able 0 make a recommendation. ,- THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission discussed the process to follow in which to provi e comments and recommendations regarding each of the issues. Commissioner Wright stated that he believes the process is bypassi g the Measure M concept 100 percent, noting that was the process which was agreed upon' tially. He also stated that he feels the property owners are losing their rights. He believes t if the County will not get involved in the Agreement that any action taken will be moot. e further stated that he does not believe it will benefit Pleasanton to work with the City of Hayward. He feels the City needs to get back to the Measure M process by establishing a ommittee to meet with the property owners now that a designated boundary has been estab 'shed. He noted that he supports the rights of the property owners. He advised that he doe not want to see the City Council enter into an agreement with only Hayward, and suggested that it wait until at least August 3 to see what action the County will take. He reiterated th t he would like to see the Measure M process followed. Commissioner Mabern stated that she feels the Council should put is issue on the ballot, even if the County has not entered the Agreement. She noted that he is convinced that the property owners that spoke at the public hearings will never annex 0 the City of Pleasanton. She noted that she has never been in favor of the Measure M proce s in that she feels a committee would never be able to get everyone to agree. She sta that she would not be in favor of going back to a committee composed of property owners. he advised that she believes a revised plan area needs to be defined. She is prepared recommend approval of the plan, with modifications deleting "appearance" in policy I, rem ving reference to "golf courses" under Section V, leaving in the "density transfer provision" and amending Program 3.1 to read "non-vehicular" public access. Commissioner Michelotti stated that she believes if the Council wan to put the General Plan Amendment on the ballot it should do so on its own. She advised at she is not in favor of recommending that it be placed on the ballot because of the process that was followed. She stated that she did not believe sufficient time was given by Council or the General Plan Steering Committee and the Commission to adequately address the i sues. She noted that she felt more work needs to be done to achieve an appropriate density sfer provision and that other options for acquiring conservation and trail easements need to e reviewed. She expressed concern over the Agreement if politics drive the decision- aking process. She Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1993 Page 9