PC 02/12/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

~ was dead-set against seeing a road and streets in the hills. She did would benefit from even having an amphitheater, a golf course, an that were discussed. She concluded that she would be in favor of Council; she would also be in favor of passing on some kind of of how they feel as a Commission about the plan itself, and then Ie may. ot think that Pleasanton all the other amenities ding the plan on to mmendation to Council the Council do what they Commissioner Michelotti stated she also feels that the plan should sent on to Council and on to the voters. She noted that it was not the Commission's purvi w tonight to change the plan but to make recommendations to Council to either put it on th ballot for the voters or send back to the Committee. She came into the process believing t the property owners have rights, as do the citizens of Pleasanton, and had hoped that ugh the process everyone would understand the other's point of view. She expres disappointment that no alternatives were incorporated in the plan which used a variety of cia! mechanisms for acquiring the desired open space. She felt that the density transfer ystem was not investigated fully and that density transfer off the ridgeland area an to another area where infrastructure exists might be feasible. She did not ever expect tha the citizens of Pleasanton could simply say they just want to look at the ridge forever as it is now without paying for it, perhaps with a regional bond. She went on to say that to her u to 15 units per acre as put forth in the plan was simply unacceptable and that the neces infrastructure to support 2,640 units, including a roadway of city standards up the ridge fro Foothill Road would be detrimental to the community and would create unacceptable levels of service on Foothill Road and at Dublin Canyon Boulevard. She felt everybody in the mmunity and even neighboring ones would feel the effects of such development in the hills and that there was no guarantee that useful parkland would be acquired. Further the of development in Sinbad Canyon cuts of the possibility of the East Bay Park extensi from the south. She added that when the first study came out she was appalled to hear ,600 units might be developed; now it had grown to 2,640 units. She concluded that e would favor sending it on to Council with a negative recommendation. Commissioner Hovingh said he appreciated the time and energy into the job, but also felt the Commission's hands are tied in that ey could not even recommend a change to the plan. He also did not see any point in trying to fine tune the plan. He was in favor of sending it on to the Council, and added at he hoped the Commission would not ever have to recommend again sending so thing to Council and the voters without the ability to change the contents. Commissioner Wright basically agreed with Chairman Mahern's ments. He felt it would be irresponsible for Pleasanton to take on the task of what would ahead if it is approved by the voters. He felt the area was too big, the project not fiscally sound, with too much parkland for the City to maintain. He felt the report was good and that the committee did a good job; he would be in favor of sending it on to Council, but w ld not be in favor of giving the Commission's recommendation to Council and felt they uld all make their own decision at the ballot box. Minutes Planning Commission February 12, 1992 Page 22