Laserfiche WebLink
321 <br /> <br /> Mr. Thomas P. Pico, Jr., 795 Neal Place, a member of the <br /> Residential Subcommittee, indicated that the membership was <br /> polarized and dominated by landowners and people who had financial <br /> interests in the development of the Ridgelands. He stated that his <br /> request to Staff for a demographics of the Committee was denied and <br /> that the minority represented the majority opinion of Pleasanton <br /> residents. He commented that everything was decided ahead of time <br /> and that the minority was not given a chance. He pointed out that <br /> the Committee has not completed its task and needs to get more <br /> information before the issue can go to the ballot. He urged the <br /> Council not to accept the Final Report. <br /> <br />· Mr. Chris Haynam, 3035 Ferndale Court, a Committee member, <br />< stated that while the Committee was not able to discharge all of <br />Z its functions, the members devoted a great deal of time and efforts <br /> until it became clear towards the end that there was not sufficient <br />~ ground for a consensus on the remaining issues. He commented that <br /> reconvening the Committee would probably not result in any <br /> additional progress. He pointed out that the Report contains a lot <br /> of information and that the minority reports are very good <br /> statements of what the issues are. He added that while he is not <br /> satisfied with the majority reports, which he believed would not be <br /> accepted by the general community, he would like to see what the <br /> Planning Commission, the Staff, and the Council can do with what is <br /> available to come up with a document that is acceptable to the <br /> residents of Pleasanton. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer inquired if Council had a consensus to reconvene <br /> the Pleasanton Ridgelands Committee, any part of the Committee or <br /> the Pleasanton Ridgelands Steering Committee. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr replied that while there may be no consensus at this <br /> point, the option to reconvene should be kept open. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer indicated that, with all the hard feelings that <br /> have built up among the Committee members, it would be extremely <br /> difficult to call the entire Committee back together and come up <br /> with a complete report that the Council, the Planning Commission, <br /> and the citizens would feel comfortable with. He added that the <br /> proper thing to do at this point is to bring in the Planning <br /> Commission to work on the Report. It would be the responsibility <br /> of the Planning Commission to gather as much information as <br /> possible during its public hearing process, for whatever length of <br /> time it would take. He stated that the Planning Commission's <br /> recommendation, together with the Final Report, may result in a <br /> complete report. However, if the Councilmembers feel that the <br /> report is still not complete, the Council will hold as many public <br /> hearings as necessary to get all the information to come up. with a <br /> <br /> - 25 - <br /> 7-16-91 <br /> <br /> <br />