Laserfiche WebLink
342 <br /> <br /> representatives, the four Subcommittee Chairs, and the four authors <br /> of the minority reports. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr commented that based on Ms. Scribner's suggestion, <br /> two minority representatives should be capable of asking the <br /> necessary questions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mick Hanou, 2398 Sandpiper Way, a Committee member from <br /> its inception, stated that the composition of the panel leaves out <br /> those who are neither majority or minority, as well as those who <br /> demonstrated the ability to discuss the pros and cons of the issues <br /> without alienating others, respecting other people's views rather <br /> than maintaining a firm stance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Thomas P. Pico, Jr., 795 Neal Place, suggested that the <br /> general committee be reconvened, consisting only of Pleasanton <br /> residents as suggested by the landowners, to try to reach a <br /> consensus. If the membership fails to arrive at a consensus, it <br /> can elect a new Chair and representatives to go forward with the <br /> process. <br /> <br /> Mr. Frank Lehne, 5466 Foothill Road, stated that the <br /> landowners deserve to be represented on the panel. He indicated <br /> that landowners try hard to do what is good for Pleasanton and the <br /> community, and that they should have a say about what happens on <br /> the Ridgelands. <br /> <br /> Ms. Karen Wilson, 8078 Palomino Drive, proposed to read a long <br /> statement, and Mr. Mercer indicated that only testimony on the <br /> composition of the committee, not on the plan, is being accepted at <br /> this time. She insisted that the plan was not in compliance with <br /> the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because no <br /> Environmental Impact Report was prepared. She inquired if the <br /> panel will be charged with coming up with an EIR. <br /> <br /> ~4r. Mercer asked Mr. Roush if a plan presented by the panel <br /> and voted in by the Pleasanton citizens at large would fall under <br /> CEQA. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that an EIR is not necessary in order to put <br /> the plan before the voters. He added that State law indicates that <br /> initiatives are not subject to the normal kind of environmental <br /> assessment where an EIR would have to be certified before it could <br /> be approved. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer inquired if the Planning Commission, the Council, <br /> or the panel could require an EIR should any of them feel that the <br /> process did not adequately address some environmental impacts, and <br /> if so, could that EIR be directed only at those specific <br /> <br /> -4 - <br /> 7-30-91 <br /> <br /> <br />