Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Page VI-18, Program 15.1, 15.2, and 15.3: Commissioner Hovingh asked that these programs <br />regarding cultural arts be deleted since they are already being implemented. Staff advised these <br />should remain for consistency in the General Plan. However, it has beeIl suggested that the <br />Cultural Arts Commission be changed to City Commission and the Planning Commission <br />concurred with this request. <br /> <br />Page VI-18, Policy 16, Program 16.1 and Program 16.2: Commissioner Hovingh suggested the <br />Human Services Commission wanted the term "and senior services" deleted from these <br />programs, feeling the implication was that senior services were not human services. After <br />considerable discussion, the Commission agreed to the modification for Policy 16: "Promote <br />human services for people of all ages... " <br /> <br />Page VI-19, Program 16.6: Mr. Rasmussen advised that the Human Services Commission <br />requested the following modification to this elderly-care facility program, adding "throughout <br />the City and, in particular, those located" in close proximity to senior services and facilities. <br />The Commission agreed with this modification. <br /> <br />Page VI-19, Program: Change "Youth advisory committee" to "Youth Commission." <br /> <br />VII. Conservation and ODen SDace Element <br /> <br />Page VII-ll, Program 1.1: Commissioner Wright inquired if this study regarding the local <br />ecology would be used as an educational tool by staff or would it be an unnecessary expense <br />because EIRs are done study-by-study. Mr. Rasmussen advised that the Open Space <br />Subcommittee, General Plan Steering Committee, and Tri-Valley Subregional Planning <br />Committee all supported this recommendation. The intent was to conduct a study jointly with <br />other Tri-Valley communities and become more aware of the overall ecological system <br />surrounding Pleasanton. The East Bay Regional Park District and Association of Bay Area <br />Governments may contribute toward this study as well as the possibility of some grant money <br />being awarded. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright concurs with the concept of the study but feels it could be cost <br />prohibitive. He would like to make the study economically feasible by getting contributions <br />from ecology groups. Chairman Lutz commented there is no final date noted for the study and <br />feels this study provides an excellent opportunity to have research done by colleges and <br />universities. Vote: 4-1 in favor of the program's current language (Wright opposed). <br /> <br />Page VII-13 , Program 4.9: Commissioner Wright feels the Public Health and Safety properties <br />should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Barker feels the General Plan Map <br />should be left as it is because it advises people up front what is expected; exceptional cases can <br />be granted variances. Commissioner McGuirk feels the language is too strong and would concur <br />with Commissioner Wright on allowing case-by-case review. This was discussed at length, <br />however, there was no support for malring a modification. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 13 <br /> <br />May 8, 1996 <br />