PC 03/25/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

.~ Commissioner McGuirk stated that he is in opposition to the plan he thought it was a poor plan, and felt that other options should have been explored. He reed that the Commission should put forward publicly their reasons for opposing the plan, d preferred that they be in the form of a motion drafted by one of the Commissioners. This motion could then be used as the basis for more indepth language of why they support or do not support the plan. e plan. He would like to erit and define the reasons that they not deal in the . ttee). He would like their onmental, park or growth Commissioner Hovingh stated he has his own reservations about see the Commission develop a position that has some intellectual why they are in opposition, if they are in opposition. He reques issues being proposed by P ARC (Preserve Area Ridgelands Com position to be based completely on planning issues and not on en issues. Chairman Mahem said she concurred with Commissioner Hoving's comments. She would like to take a vote tonight showing their support or opposition to e plan with a recommendation that one of the Commissioners come back with me kind of language in two weeks in the form of a resolution that they can sign. In response to Commissioner Michelotti's desire for further discus ion tonight, she noted that each Commissioner could give their written reasons for opposition to the person preparing the language. Commissioner Michelotti listed her reasons for opposing the plan: (1) Visual impacts; a roadway that is required up the face of the ridge would be visible d obtrusive from the Valley floor; (2) The impact of 2,640 units along with the comme cial services that would surely follow; (3) A prior report stated that the plan would cost taxpayers a significant amount during the first 12 years before it was estimated to become fiscally balanced. However it was changed by the Executive Committee to read that' must be fiscally self- sufficient. Regarding that, she felt there were too many "ifs" invo ved and too many unanswered questions. Chairman Mahern commented that the feeling of the Ridgeland Co of the plan would give Pleasanton control over the ridgelands; how 2,640 units, she felt they would lose much control. Her main con interpreted differently now by everyone, including staff, that 20 y could be interpreted differently again. mittee was that approval er, with the projected rn was that as the plan is s from now everything In response to a comment by Commissioner Mahern, Mr. Swift an as the item was placed on the agenda for discussion that it must be their comments. Mr. Beougher stated that n to the public for THE PUBUC COMMENT PERIOD WAS OPENRn, No public comments were made. Minute. Planning Commission March 25, 1992 Page 3