PC 07/24/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Gene Finch, 7019 Jorgensen Lane, a resident since 1965, commented that Ridgelands will always be an emotional issue. He urged that the Commission remain impartial and abide by the wishes of the majority of those 250 people who formed the committee. He felt that as many people had donated their time to the committee the Commission must focus on what they wanted and had accomplished. He pointed out that if 2,640 units are indeed built, they will be spread out over the acreage and should not impact the views. Dagmar Fulton, 4019 Peregine Way, Pleasanton, said she has lived in the valley all her life. She stated she felt the Chairman of the committee did a good job considering the difficult task. She was tired of hearing how terrible the property owners were for wanting to develop their property and felt people who thought they were should realize that except for developers they would not have a place to live. She felt that the Ridgelands did not have to be all parks and open space, and if they were taken off the tax rolls, it would be costly. She felt that parks and development could co-exist. Judith Bettencourt of Sunol said she was on the residential committee and commended Mr. Lee on the amount of work done on the report. She stated she is concerned about possible residential development in the Sinbad Canyon area. She didn't feel that such a neighborhood would feel like it belonged as a part of Pleasanton. She also had a problem with the density transfer issue and felt that there was potential for abuse. She was also concerned that the Joint Powers Agreement or how to plan for a regional area had not been discussed. Finally, she urged that more consideration be given to working with Hayward. Peggy Purnell, 2472 Via De Los Milagros, Pleasanton, urged that the report be sent back to staff for further work. She felt that staff did not have adequate time to analyze the committee reports. She stated that ballot language on Measures M and N were very confusing, and hoped that the language for this issue would not be as hard to understand. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CWSED. COMMISSION'S COMMENTS: After hearing all the testimony from the audience, Chairman Mahern stated that the Commission's task is to decide whether or not the report before them tonight is complete enough to send to City Council and on to the November ballot. If they consider it complete, they would send it on to Council; if not, she suggested they need to make some kind of recommendation as to where they should go from here. It was the consensus of the Commission that at this point none of them thought the report was ready to send to Council or put on the November ballot. COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Commissioner Wright felt that financial issues need to be addressed in depth; that some kind of concise disclaimer is needed in the ballot language stating that it can cost the taxpayers some money and making them aware of this issue. He did not think an extra committee was needed to review Minutes Planning Commission July 24. 1991 Page 12 ,. .