My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 10/26/88
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1988
>
PC 10/26/88
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/1/2013 3:43:38 PM
Creation date
4/13/2007 2:35:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/26/1988
DOCUMENT NAME
PC102688
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
Commissioner Hoyt was uncomfortable with the Del Voile <br />extension:_ he was not in favor of the 5uno1 extension. However, <br />he also felt there was flexibility in the plan and these things <br />could be worked out. <br />Commissioners Hoyt and Mahern said they are in favor of the <br />revised plan. <br />Commissioner Hoyt expressed concern with 3U and 6D degree <br />parking. Mr. Lee said studies have been done and it has been <br />agreed that diagonal parking will not work because of lack of <br />backing up space. Thirty degree parking will not give more <br />parking spaces than parallel. The Chamber of Commerce had <br />proposed a one block area for a trial run of diagonal parking. <br />Commissioner Hoyt asked if any bike lanes are proposed for Main <br />Street. Mr. Lee said none are planned for Main Street because <br />of lack of space, but that 5uno1 could provide bike access to <br />Main Street. <br />No further action was taken on the Specific Plan. <br />DISCUSSION_OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAM <br />------------ ----- <br />Mr. Lee reminded the Commission that action is limited to <br />adoption of a resolution recommending approval of the revised <br />Redevelopment Plan 4dated September 16, 1998? and making <br />findings that it is consistent with the General Plan. <br />Commissioner Hovingh commented that there are many arguments <br />against the Redevelopment Plan. He noted most thought the <br />downtown was not blighted, but he felt that blight is not always <br />visible on the surface. He felt there were areas that could <br />qualify as blighted such as the storm drains and sewer system. <br />He felt that infrastructure might be affected. He was concerned <br />about the loss of revenues to other agencies if the plan was not <br />approved. He added that he would like to see the downtown <br />shopping hours be more like the mall for easier shopping for <br />those who work. <br />Commissioner Tarver agreed that there might be blight, whether <br />it be visible or not. He expressed concern about the possible <br />Loss of funds to the City and asked Mr. Lee to address that <br />issue. Mr. Lee said they have been working with the County for <br />about nine months and within a week should come to an agreement. <br />He stated that from the beginning the County's contention was <br />that they did not want to lose any revenues above and beyond <br />what they would normally receive from the area without <br />Redevelopment. He added that the City has been proceeding along <br />those lines and felt they had an agreement that would enable the <br />County to cover that base. <br />Commissioner Tarver felt that the City would be taking about ~~b <br />million and using it in the downtown area without asking for <br />Page 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.