PC 04/08/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

5. MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION - a. Consideration of the scone and process for a nrooosed specific elan for the east side of the City of Pleasanton Chair Cooper opened the Public Hearing for anyone who did not speak at the last two public hearings on this issue. Mary Roberts, 1666 Vineyard Avenue, stated that she has had two unsettling experiences with specific plans being made up by developers. The first was Kottinger Hills, and she noted that she attended several of the committee meetings. Her understanding was that the development would be hidden and, therefore, the existing residents agreed to allow the development to proceed. As a last minute comment, they were also told that the golf course was being considered. She feels that the presentation made to the public for Kottinger Hills was not an honest presentation and the developers did not disclose their full intentions. Her second negative experience with a specific plan was with the Vineyard Avenue Corridor study. She noted that in the late '80's and early '90's, she spoke with City staff and was advised that there would be a Vineyard Avenue Corridor study, and she openly volunteered to participate. In 1992, she received a telephone call from a neighbor and asked if she wanted to have the area developed. She stated she did not and then realized she was lefr "completely out of the loop." She, subsequently, contacted the City and was sent information on the subject. She feels that had she not contacted the City on her own, she would have been totally unaware of what was going on. Mr. Roberts also stated that she does not think the 80% resident/20% special interest committees will work as well as it would if the City were to control the specific plan. She does not think it is inappropriate for the City to take over the planning of the City, noting that it is the City's job, not developers', to plan for the City. Steve Belecky, 3644 Kamp Drive, asked whether there has been any investigation by the City of the tactics used by Ponderosa at the time of the residents' petition. He asked whether the Commission expected the citizens to initiate a civil action. Ms. Seto responded that the City was served with an action relating to the referendum and, subsequently, began an initial investigation as to whether it would be appropriate to file across-complaint against Ponderosa and to determine whether there was any wrong-doing on their part. However, Ponderosa dropped the suit, and the City did not pursue the investigation, feeling the matter would follow a political process and that would be an inappropriate way to settle the issue. Commissioner Barker noted that Ponderosa is represented on City committees, and it was never fully investigated to see if those Ponderosa employees should be removed from their committees due to their involvement with Civil Rights violations during the referendum period, although she thinks it should have been. Ms. Seto also stated that any criminal charges would be filed by the District Attorney's Office. Chair Cooper, therefore, suggested to Mr. Belecky that he contact the District Attorney's Office to file any criminal complaints against Ponderosa. Mr. Belecky stated that while he understands his remedy to contact the D.A.'s Office, he feels that the City should, at least, investigate whether the allegations are true and, if so, whether Ponderosa should remain on any City committees. He further Planning Commission Page 4 April 8, 1998