My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 03/25/1992
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
PC 03/25/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/29/2017 4:24:59 PM
Creation date
5/25/2005 2:02:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/25/1992
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 03/25/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
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 />Page 16 - second paragraph - GP-91-9/PUD-91-17, Kaufman and Broad - Commissioner <br />Michelotti amended it to read: "Commissioner Michelotti said sh had a problem with the <br />General Plan change and hence the change in sound mitigations n ed for a single family <br />residence project. She felt the project was unattractive; that the 1 -15 ft. soundwalls were <br />not acceptable and too repetitive". She could not support the proj t. <br /> <br /> <br />P <br />AGENDA <br /> <br />There were none. <br /> <br />REVISIONS AND OMISSIONS TO THE AGENDA <br /> <br />Mr. Swift requested that UP-9l-1O, Pleasanton Garbage Service, continued indefinitely. <br />The Commission agreed to this request. <br /> <br />MA TTER..l;l INITIA TFn BY COMMISSION MRMRERS <br />o Discussion of Ridgelands Plan Initiative (Measu <br /> <br />Commissioner Michelotti stated that she had requested that this ite be placed on the agenda <br />for discussion because the Commission had passed their decision 0 to Council without a <br />recommendation. She stated that she felt the Commission should ave given the Council <br />some feedback as to the pros and cons of the plan, but due to the a.m. hour of discussion, <br />they had not done so. She noted she would like for the Commissi ners to state whether they <br />would like to take a stand on Measure K as it will go before the v ters. Another reason she <br />brought the subject up again is because she believed that as a PI ing Commissioner she <br />had a responsibility to make her view point public on Measure K. She felt that as Planning <br />Commissioners they should discuss the measure and make a recom endation to. the public. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Chairman Mahem said she echoed Commissioner Michelotti's state ent and felt they should <br />take a public stance on Measure K. She felt this is the single-most important piece of <br />property they have ever addressed and wished to make their views ublic. She also stated <br />that she is personally going to take an active part in the campaign n Measure K. <br /> <br />Chairman Mahern asked Mr. Swift if the Commission can make a solution tonight or come <br />back at a later time with a recommendation. Mr. Swift replied tha a simple "we support" or <br />"we do not support" the plan can be done tonight. Something mor explanatory or lengthy <br />should be done at another time. He said a straw vote can be taken night and then one of <br />the Commission members can formulate language for a recommen tion. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Minutes Planning Commission <br />March 25, 1992 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.