PC 11/09/83 - Laserfiche WebLink

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION 11/9/83 Page 10 Mr. Gordello, 408 Division Street, stated he has no privacy now, people can look right into his yard. He urged the Planning Commission to recommend a park for the west side of Peters Avenue. Larry Osborne, 1159 Kottinger Drive, owner of the building at 699 Peters Avenue, urged approval of the general plan amendment. He hopes they have been good neighbors. With regard to a proposed park, he currently lives across the street from one and wouldn't move across the street from one again. Concerning a recent comment about losing privacy, there would be none of two-story multiple units were built on the west side of Peters Avenue. He did' not feel that argument was a valid one. He believes that commercial buildings can be built which could really benefit the downtown area. Commissioner Wilson asked Mr. Osborne if he would rather have a parking lot than a park. Mr. Osborne responded that socially he would like to have a parking lot instead of a park. Lee Amaral, 7000 Tassajara Road, spoke in favor of the general plan change to the west side of Peters Avenue. He stated that Ms. Vintner, Ms. Mayhew and Mr. Osborne stated the way he also feels.. He stated that currently there are not enough businesses downtown to support the area. He stated that Southern Pacific has said they were going to develop for several years and haven't done so. He felt that Hacienda Business Park is a plus and has no problem with other major developments, but there is a need for smaller developers to rent in the downtown area. He felt that commercial or office use on Peters Avenue would help everyone in the entire community. He said that one cannot turn back the clock and that Pleasanton is not like it used to be. He further felt that a park in the area would be a waste of taxpayers' money. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Wilson felt that a meeting of the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission is in order with regard to this general plan amendment. Chairman Jamieson concurred that there should be a joint meeting. Commissioner Getty wanted this matter scheduled for the next meeting so that the matter of a park could be resolved one way or the other. Mr. Harris indicated that the matter could be continued to November 28, 1983 and still be considered by the City Council on December 6, 1983 or it could not be heard by City Council until April 1984. Commissioner Getty said she would like to get it before the Parks and Recreation Commission before the 28th. It was suggested that a joint meeting be held on November 21, 1983 after the Planning Commission meeting regarding the Hacienda development agreement and the matter be continued to November 28, 1983 for decision by the Planning Commission. Chairman Jamieson asked if public testimony would be taken at the 21st meeting. Commissioner Getty said it would be her opinion that the 21st would be a study session and the matter would return to the Commission for public testimony and decision on the 28th of November. Chairman Jamieson then announced that the Parks and Recreation Commission would be invited to attend a joint study session on the 21st day of November 1983, 4:OOpm. Commissioner Wilson said he would be out of town and unable to attend either the Planning Commission or the joint Planning Commission-Park and Recreation Commission meetings. Commissioner Doherty said he would endeavor to be at the meetings at 4:OOpm. Case GP-83-9 was then continued to November 28, 1983, Monday, 8:OOpm for public testimony and decision and there would be an interim work session with the Parks and Recreation Commission on Monday, November 21, 1983, at 4:OOpm following the Hacienda $usiness Park hearing