My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 08/09/1995
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
PC 08/09/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/10/2017 3:57:28 PM
Creation date
3/30/2005 2:24:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/9/1995
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 08/09/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />" <br />, <br /> <br />In response to Commissioner Hovingh, Mr. McLaughlin stated that signed and numbered <br />prints can be considered public art. Appropriate use and placement would be of concern. <br />Regarding the 2 % appropriations from Capital Improvement Projects, projects such as senior <br />care centers, sports parks, or City-owned housing developments would be responsible for the <br />2 % appropriation. Funds for street paving and improvement would not be subject to the <br />appropriation. <br /> <br />In response to Commissioner Barker, Mr. McLaughlin stated there was such strong <br />opposition to developer funding, this option was voted down by Committee. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright clarified with Mr. McLaughlin that the Committee's selection of <br />public art would be presented to the City Council before being finalized. Mr. McLaughlin <br />noted that there would be ample opportunity for the public to voice their opinions on the <br />Committee's selections of public art. <br /> <br />Mr. Swift advised that the proposed Public Art ordinance will be on a future agenda for the <br />Commission's review. <br /> <br />Commissioner Barker commented that new development could mitigate its impact with the <br />gift of public art instead of appropriating 2 % of the CIP budget. Mr. McLaughlin advised <br />that could be encouraged, but the Committee needs to have some form of a predictable, <br />consistent funding source. <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk inquired about the make-up of the Committee. He feels there should <br />be a spectrum of different backgrounds comprising the Committee. Mr. McLaughlin gave an <br />overview of the varying backgrounds of the committee members. The scope of the <br />Committee may be broadened by including drama. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright feels the funding sources are correct and does not want to add another <br />fee to developers. <br /> <br />4. REVISIONS AND OMISSIONS TO THE AGENDA <br /> <br />Mr. Swift advised the Commission that Item 6a., UP-95-40, Pamela V. Wells and Item 6g., <br />Z-95-126, Essenar Investrnents/Safeway, were continued to August 23, 1995, and Item 6e., <br />UP-95-27/Z-95-1l2, Connolly Development, Inc. was continued indefinitely. <br /> <br />5. MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION <br /> <br />a. Plannm!! Commission Review and Comments Re!!ardin!! the "Final General Plan <br />Steerin!! Committee Recommendations for Uodatin!! the General Plan" <br /> <br />The Commissioners decided to open the meeting for public comment. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />August 9, 1995 <br /> <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.