PC 042705 - Laserfiche WebLink

_. Becky Dennis, 838 Gray Fox Circle, affordable housing advocate, noted that as Pleasanton approaches buildout, the economic dynamism of the City should be considered in order to preserve the quality of life. She noted that the deletion of the idea that Pleasanton would have a diversity of high-quality recreational activities, housing and cultural opportunities only for its residents ran counter to the Chamber of Commerce's efforts to ensure that Pleasanton benefits economically from being a destination; First Wednesday and the Alameda County Fair were two events that she recalled. She hoped that visitors to Pleasanton would enjoy their stay and return. She noted that the next bullet, "Minimizes the impacts of future growth," had always been part of Pleasanton's guiding principles but believed it was somewhat vague and undefined- She noted that all vital cities had some sort of building or economic growth and suggested that that bullet definition be more reFned as community comments are heard. She expressed concern that the item addressing "accommodating housing for all ages and income levels" was deleted and would like it to be reinstated- She suggested that the bullet addressing natural environment include a statement that the City would cooperate regionally because some of the City's most significant environment is not within its jurisdiction- She suggested leaving the word "redevelopment" in because "revitalization" did not cover all of the work needed to be done in certain areas of the City. She believed the City should both enhance and. preserve the quality of life. She suggested that Pleasanton's families, schools, and senior services be addressed. more completely. She suggested that during the community workshops, the question "Does Pleasanton value prosperity for the people who invest in the community, although they do not live here?" should be asked- She noted that those people and entities are crucial elements of the City's economic vitality- Pat Belding, Chair, Citizens for a Caring Community, 7703 Highland Oaks Drive, complimented "-- the City on the process of craning a vision statement. She noted that Pleasanton had always been a city of diverse economic and other backgrounds. She believed there was community support for mixed-income housing in Pleasanton and urged the reinclusion of the statement, "housing of various types of densities andprices which accommodate all income levels and ages." John Carroll, 2981 Marino Avenue, noted that he liked much of the material included in the Vision Statement, including Palo Alto's goal to "reduce reliance on the automobile _" He hoped that Pleasanton might follow its lead in that same area. He noted that there were pieces of infrastructure in Pleasanton for pedestrian and biking trails, but they are not fully connected, particularly in the Iron Horse Trail to the BART station. He hoped the trail could be extended through to Livermore and suggested that a bike path be created to connect to Dublin as well as through Hacienda Business Park. He suggested that paths to Las Positas G'ollege or Livermore Labs be created as well. Chairperson Maas suggested that Mr. Carroll submit that list to the Parks and Recreation Department and believed that bike transportation should be taken more seriously in Pleasanton- Judith Geiselman, 2602 Glen Isle Avenue, wished to respond to the staff report and noted that she was pleased to sea the changes in the Vision Statement since April 7. She preferred the bullet format, which she believed was clearer, more concise, and easier for people to relate to. She liked the suggestion in the first bullet of including the word "visitors" because Pleasanton can be very welcoming in relation to recreational, educational, and cultural endeavors. She did - not see anything addressing energy in the Vision Statement. While she liked the word PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 27, 2005 Page 3 of 13