PC 07/24/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

not understand how the plan as proposed would preserve 80% of the open space and thought this also needed addressing. He thought the citizens should be informed how open space will be acquired and funded. He felt the ballot language was in error in that it does not mention that part of the Ridgelands are in the Hayward city limits. Mr. Pico felt the ballot language did not address the impact on the existing Pleasanton residents should 2,600 homes and a golf course and/or other facilities be established in the Ridgelands. He thought the matter of access roads, water supplies, density transfers, sewer adequacy, and density of housing was not addressed in detail in the report and that the entire plan should be rejected by the Planning Commission. [Commissioner Michelotti joined the meeting.] David Glenn, 5650 Foothill Road, stated he was a member of the committee. He addressed traffic concerns should 2,600 units be built, in particular in the Stoneridge Mall area. He would return the report to the committee and staff and ask for a more indepth study of financial, water, and traffic issues. Bob Pearson, 3590 Churchill Court, felt the City might be making a big mistake by putting the matter on the ballot. He felt that if 2,640 units were approved it was very probable that 2,640 of them would be built. He wondered how million dollar homes could be built at a density of three/acre and wondered if the City could afford to own open-space. He urged that the following issues be fully addressed before brought to the ballot: adequacy of water supplies, density transfer, and sewer plant capacity. He also felt that should development take place that each developer be responsible for finding and paying for water for that development. Terry Spraggins, 7024 Corte Del Oro, Pleasanton, stated she has been a member of the Citizens Committee. Even though she did not feel anything was railroaded through, she did feel some issues were not adequately discussed. In particular, the ballot language was not clear enough; and the "receiving" area should be clearly defined. Karen Wilson, 807-A Palomino Dr., Pleasanton, presented written comments to the Commission which stated she disagreed with the Consensus Recommendations. She further expressed concerns that financial issues were not addressed and that the City could face possible lawsuits in the future if the report is rushed to the November ballot. She also noted she has not seen any input from the Park and Recreation Commission and felt this was very important. Marjorie LaBarr spoke on behalf of a number of members of the Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee. She urged that staff take an indepth look at the costs of providing police protection against vandalism, etc. in the Ridgelands should development take place. Staff should also consider the cost of fighting wildfires that could more easily happen with development; and look at where the "receiving" and "sending" areas are located. She felt that an EIR should be done, and that the Commission slow down and set a good example for the Bay Area. Minutes Planning Commission July 24, 1991 Page 11 ,. .