PC 062304 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner. She respected the Commission's concerns and invited them to contact her with any questions. Commissioner Maas recalled that she made the suggestion to Commissioner Arkin at that meeting to contact Ms. McKeehan about his concerns. She noted that was his right but that she would not have expressed her concerns in a public forum. Commissioner Sullivan believed that this was a good conversation to hold in a public forum. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Judith Geiselman, 2602 Glen Isle Avenue, thanked Commissioner Arkin for bringing this issue before the Commission. She expressed concern about what she considered to be misleading marketing strategies, whether it be done innocently or with intent. She would like the brochure recalled and corrected to clazify that it was a document solely from the Chamber of Commerce. She requested and had a meeting at the Chamber to hear the specific objectives of "Vision Pleasanton" and how it related to the City General Plan Update. Following the meeting, she had believed that although the Chamber published the brochure and document, it was a joint effort between the City and the Chamber. Alternatively, she suggested that a supplemental statement be attached to the brochure for distribution. Commissioner Sullivan believed this was a valuable discussion because there may be confusion _ within the community. He emphasized that he never believed there was an ethics question with respect to staff and believed that it was one of staff s roles to meet with any community group, including the Chamber of Commerce. He noted that there had been considerable community outreach in prepazing the General Plan, with mixed success. He noted that the Chamber's publication contained many of the elements of the General Plan and might cause confusion by appeazing to be a General Plan with staff names included in the publication. He welcomed the Chamber's input to the General Plan rather than having it work on a separate project. In response to Chairperson Roberts' observation that Chambers of Commerce in general were being encouraged to produce visioning documents, Ms. McKeehan confirmed that this was not the first Chamber to undergo this process locally. Chairperson Roberts did not believe that the Chamber's document was a direct response to the City's General Plan Update process. Commissioner Fox advised that an editorial in the Pleasanton Weekly expressed confusion about this issue, and that it was unfortunate that the "BacPac" logo was printed on the brochure, in addition to the Chamber of Commerce logo. Ms. McKeehan advised that the City did not support political candidates. Steve Clarkson, Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce, Stoneridge Drive, inquired what the concern about the "BacPac" was and added that teachers and City employees belonged to other PACs. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 23, 2004 Page 12 of 15