PC 03/25/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner McGuirk stated that he is in opposition to the plan; e thought it was a poor plan, and felt that other options should have been explored. He ag that the Commission should put forward publicly their reasons for opposing the plan, an preferred that they be in the form of a motion drafted by one of the Commissioners. This otion could then be used as the basis for more indepth language of why they support or do t support the plan. Commissioner Hovingh stated he has his own reservations about th plan. He would like to see the Commission develop a position that has some intellectual rit and define the reasons why they are in opposition, if they are in opposition. He reques that they not deal in the issues being proposed by PARC (Preserve Area Ridgelands Com ttee). He would like their position to be based completely on planning issues and not on envi onmental, park or growth issues. In response to Commissioner Michelotti's desire for further discus ion tonight, she noted that each Commissioner could give their written reasons for oppositio to the person preparing the language. s comments. She would e plan with a me kind of language in Chairman Mahern said she concurred with Commissioner Hoving like to take a vote tonight showing their support or opposition to recommendation that one of the Commissioners come back with two weeks in the form of a resolution that they can sign. 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 and obtrusive from the Valley floor; (2) The impact of 2,640 units along with the comm cia! services that would surely follow; (3) A prior report stated that the plan would cost e taxpayers a significant amount during the first 12 years before it was estimated to beco fiscally balanced. However it was changed by the Executive Committee to read that it must be fiscally self- sufficient. Regarding that, she felt there were too many "ifs. inv Ived and too many unanswered questions. Chairman Mahem commented that the feeling of the Ridgeland C mmittee was that approval of the plan would give Pleasanton control over the ridgelands; ho ever, with the projected 2,640 units, she felt they would lose much control. Her main co cern was that as the plan is interpreted differently now by everyone, including staff, that 20 ears from now everything could be interpreted differently again. In response to a comment by Commissioner Mahern, Mr. Swift as the item was placed on the agenda for discussion that it must their comments. d Mr. Beougher stated that open to the public for THE PUBLIC COMMRNT PERIOD WAS OPENED. No public comments were made. Minutes Planning Commission March 25, 1992 Page 3