CCMIN121785 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Donna Turman, Executive Director of the Walter Johnson Foundation, described the charitable motives of this non-profit organization. She advised there are four members of the Johnson family on the Board of Directors and two non-family members. She stated the Foundation is made up of two entities: one that makes grants and is non-profit; the other is endowment, which is the profit making portion. She explained that maintaining the property as ranch land is not economically feasible therefore development is being considered. She felt this would be the best possible use of the land and would be consis- tent with neighboring property. She stated she concurred with the Planning Commission action. Mr. Ronald Friend, Attorney representing the Foundation, stated that Wal- ter Johnson signed an annexation agreement in 1965 which contemplated use of this property for residential. He stated that when development plans were first considered over one year ago there was disagreement by City staff regarding the agreement, but that they proceeded with the application. He stated they went along with the reduced density of the project in the spirit of compromise. He felt all major issues have been resolved and urged approval of the application. Dr. Howard Long, 9933 Longview Lane, stated the reduced density should be flexible; if people want smaller yards and more space for horses, etc., this should be allowed. He expressed concern regarding traffic on Foothill Road, design, landscaping, and bicycle trails. The following persons spoke in opposition to this matter: Mr. Richard Combs, 4443 Second Street, stated he is not totally against the project, but has concerns regarding hillside development. He reviewed various advantages and disadvantages regarding this matter. He felt access to the park is a major issue and requested that this issue not be put off to a later date. He stated the park provides opportunity to a unique area for the residents of Pleasanton. He stated if Council feels that the most positive aspect is access to the park, then it should be addressed tonight; the benefit is clear. He requested that approval of the application not be granted until the park access is determined. Ms. Margaret Tracy, 1262 Madison Avenue, Livermore, representing Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee, stated the Pleasanton Ridge is a community resource to the City of Pleasanton and entire region. She expressed concern regarding the geological instability of this area for development. She stated the City is assuming a sizeable liability and potential litigation to allow development to occur in this area. She presented two documents to Council as follows: (1) an open space legacy; and (2) development policy recommendations for the Ridgelands. She supported the Park and Recreation Commission recommendation for public access to the park. She urged Council to delay final approval of this project until the park access issue has been resolved. Ms. Evelyn Portnoff, 5884 Corte Mente, stated she would like to see a le- gal way to get to the top of the ridge. Mr. Roy Bidwell, 4025 Peregrine Way, instructor at Chabot College, stated he is not opposed to the proposal but feels public access to the park is going to be a vital part of the full development of the park. He stated he is look- ing forward tro working with his students in this open area as soon as there is public access. - 6 12-17-85