My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN041790
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
CCMIN041790
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:34 AM
Creation date
11/3/1999 10:20:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
198 <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that timeliness is an issue here. She said <br /> that she regrets that Council denied a request in 1982 to annex <br /> Ruby Hills. Six years later, another developer went directly to <br /> the County to apply for development approval. She emphasized that <br /> she did not want to make that same mistake on something more <br /> critical than Ruby Hills. She mentioned that the Steering <br /> Committee would serve no purpose if it will not consider <br /> annexation and that the Staff Report has set a good strategy to <br /> mOVe <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler emphasized that at this point, there is absolutely <br /> no preconceived plan regarding what the next step to annexation <br /> would be. The purpose of involving a citizens committee is to <br /> help make recommendations to the Commission and the Council <br /> regarding logical planning over a long period of time. The study <br /> starts with no guarantees, but in order to do an effective job, <br /> some structure is necessary to get off the ground. This structure <br /> will be provided by the Steering Committee, which would merely try <br /> to identify issues and come back to Council with recommendations. <br /> The Steering Committee will have to address the question of <br /> annexation in the context of what four of the five Councilmembers <br /> brought out at the work session. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer stated that a newspaper article indicated that the <br /> Council has already made up its mind about the Ridgelands, as has <br /> been the case for every controversial issue which Council has <br /> referred to a citizens' committee. He pointed out that Council <br /> has always supported citizens' reports. He emphasized that there <br /> is no rush to complete the study and that citizens' involvement <br /> and good sound decisions are much more important than trying to <br /> finish the study. <br /> <br /> Ms. Spraggins stated that she has heard comments that Council <br /> has already decided to annex and that the citizens were not <br /> listened to in spite of their letters to Council. She said that <br /> she was under the impression that the work session would gather <br /> information and discuss options to enable the Council to make the <br /> best decision regarding extending the sphere-of-influence rather <br /> than annexation. She added that although many comments made at <br /> workshop called for a park on the Ridgelands, the main issue is <br /> open space and a desire to see the Ridgelands as they are today. <br /> She expressed concern that it was too soon for the City to talk <br /> about annexation and that only the sphere-of-influence should be <br /> considered at this time. She suggested that Council support the <br /> County's General Plan instead, which currently protects the <br /> Ridgelands from extensive development. She concluded that it <br /> would not be in her interest as Chairperson of SPRC to serve on <br /> the Steering Committee, whose agenda includes deciding how much <br /> development will be allowed on the Ridgelands. <br /> <br /> - 12 - <br /> 4-17-90 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.