CCMIN071691 - Laserfiche WebLink

316 development in the Ridgelands. He commented that it would be a major flaw to force a change from agricultural to residential land use, which generally takes two years. He questioned the manner in which the last Committee meeting was conducted. He indicated that the Committee members were informed at the beginning of the sessions that the Committee would come together as a group at the end of the sessions, and all the members would be able to discuss the issues openly. This did not happen. He concluded that based on the work that was done, the Final Report was good, rational, objective and honest. However, it was a flawed report because not enough consensus was built in from the entire Committee's standpoint. Ms. Mayvonne Garrity, 1870 Tanglewood Way, a Committee member, stated that the Committee has not completed its work because the majority of the members did not have the opportunity to discuss most of the policies in the Final Report, resulting in vague policy statements that would not give the electorate a clear understanding of what is proposed for the Ridgelands' future. She pointed out that many of the policies leave room for liberal interpretation, thereby rendering the entire policy statement meaningless. She expressed concern that Council would compound the Committee's oversight by rushing the process to meet an unnecessary deadline and requested Council to reconvene the Committee to discuss thoroughly the impact on Pleasanton of future changes on the Ridgelands and to allow Staff to make a complete study of the issues. She inquired how the Council would ensure that the citizens of Pleasanton will have a quality product on the ballot with the proposed race to the November 1991 ballot. Mr. Mercer commented that Ms. Garrity's concerns were valid. He stated that he felt the Council should forward the Final Report to the Planning Commission for the Commissioners to review until all their questions are answered and they are satisfied with the product. The Commission would then send the product to the Council, and the Council will review the report until it is satisfied with the product. Ms. Peggy Purnell, 2472 Via de los Milagros, commented that she was denied the input provided by Measure M. She stated that the Committee was largely dominated by the landowners' group, which gained control of the Committee and relegated all discussion of alternative plans to minority reports instead of open discussion once its development plan was approved. She indicated that the Committee needs to be reconvened and address some of the issues in the Report, including those in the Scope of Work formulated by the Steering Committee, such as voting, consensus building, Staff evaluation of the preliminary plan with respect to financial feasibility, impacts on the City, infrastructure requirements, - 20 - 7-16-91