PC 07/28/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

regarding a road up the face of the Ridge, noting that she also has ncems, but that she understands this reference means there will be a staging area. She ked 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 ent that not enough time had been given to the Commission to act on this issue, noting that ver $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 bypass' g the Measure M concept 100 percent, noting that was the process which was agreed upon i itially. He also stated that he feels the property owners are losing their rights. He believes at if the County will not get involved in the Agreement that any action taken will be moot. He further stated that he does not believe it will benefit Pleasanton to work with the City 0 Hayward. He feels the City needs to get back to the Measure M process by establishing a Committee to meet with the property owners now that a designated boundary has been esta lished. He noted that he supports the rights of the property owners. He advised that he d s not want to see the City Council enter into an agreement with only Hayward, and sugges that it wait until at least August 3 to see what action the County will take. He reiterated at he would like to see the Measure M process followed. Commissioner Mahern stated that she feels the Council should put this issue on the ballot, even if the County has not entered the Agreement. She noted that she is convinced that the property owners that spoke at the public hearings will never anne to the City of Pleasanton. She noted that she has never been in favor of the Measure M pr ss 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. She advised that she believes a revised plan area needs to be defined. She is prepared 0 recommend approval of the plan, with modifications deleting "appearance" in policy 1, re oving reference to "golf courses" under Section V, leaving in the "density transfer provisi n," and amending Program 3.1 to read "non-vehicular" public access. Commissioner Michelotti stated that she believes if the Council w ts to put the General Plan Amendment on the ballot it should do so on its own. She advised that she is not in favor of recommending that it be placed on the ballot because of the proce s that was followed. She stated that she did not believe sufficient time was given by Counc I for the General Plan Steering Committee and the Commission to adequately address th issues. She noted that she felt more work needs to be done to achieve an appropriate density transfer provision and that other options for acquiring conservation and trail easements need 0 be reviewed. She expressed concern over the Agreement if politics drive the decisio -making process. She Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1993 Page 9