My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 02/12/1992
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
PC 02/12/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/29/2017 4:24:30 PM
Creation date
5/25/2005 1:47:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/12/1992
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 02/12/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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 />Judy Bettencourt, 2918 Kilkare Road, Sunol, noted that the prope <br />time to wait to develop, but no time to wait for EBRPD to buy th . <br />the Commission pass the plan on to Council, but with a negative <br /> <br /> <br />owners had plenty of <br />land. She urged that <br />mmendation. <br /> <br />George Schneider, 3687 Kilkare Road, said he wishes to withdraw is letter that was written <br />to staff and shown as an attachment (No. 10). <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br /> <br />COMMISSION'S COMMRNTS <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Commissioner Horan expressed concerns about comments that the ommission should put <br />forth their personal endorsement, either for or against the plan. C mmissioner Horan further <br />stated he has concerns about the plan as presented and felt that he eard things tonight <br />contrary to what he has seen and personally observed. He said he as most sympathetic to <br />those people who live in Palomares Canyon in that he did not want anything done to them, <br />that as co-chairman of Measure M, he did not want anyone to be le to do to residents of <br />Palomares what was done to Pleasanton with the "Hayward Hotel. He agreed that any <br />discussion of development in the buffer zone does have an alarmin sound to it; however, the <br />Foothill Road Overlay District guidelines prevent anything from b . g the ridgeline and as <br />far as he knew that meant street lights, water tanks, etc. He expr sed concern about an <br />access road to the ridge and felt that if a road is built, that it shoul go up the face of <br />Pleasanton Ridge first. Commissioner Horan stated that he felt the plan supports what <br />Measure M tried to do; he felt the process itself was working, eve though there was <br />disagreement about it. He favored sending the plan on to Council d then to the ballot and <br />letting the citizens decide for themselves. He felt strongly that the Council should arrive at <br />equitable ballot language. <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk said he did not agreed with a comment th t Pleasanton has a <br />resource in the ridgelands. He said the citizens of Pleasanton hav an appreciation for the <br />beauty; however, the landowners have the property. He was not' favor of seeing anything <br />that looked like a small city in the hills and was not sure what he eard was good planning <br />for Pleasanton. He felt there was also the possibility of even see' retail businesses in the <br />ridgelands. He was not sure that Pleasanton would get anything 0 t of development but the <br />extra traffic. He was concerned about where a ridge road would ; about how development <br />might affect neighboring communities and residents who live near e ridgelands. He felt <br />that the "preserve" requirements of Measure M were not in this P . He did not think the <br />citizens of Pleasanton were in a position to fiscally support the p . However, he would <br />pass it on to the voters and let them make up their own mind. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Chairman Mahem stated she, too, believed the plan must now be <br />allow them to make up their own minds. She felt the process had <br />stated she is defmitely not in favor of the plan. She felt it would <br />the citizens of Pleasanton and the neighboring communities. She <br />economic feasibility of the plan; disliked the uncertainty of devel <br /> <br /> <br />on to the voters and <br />een fair; however, she <br />ve a negative impact on <br />rther questioned the <br />ment in the preserve area; <br /> <br />Minutes Planning commission <br />February 12, 1992 <br /> <br />Page 21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.