My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 10/26/83
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1983
>
PC 10/26/83
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 10:22:46 AM
Creation date
4/27/2007 4:13:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/26/1983
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 10/26/83
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
I <br />MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />10/26/83 <br />Page 21 <br />Commissioner Lindsey spoke to concerns relating to unplanned and <br />uncontrolled growth. He said nothing could be farther from the <br />truth. Controls have been implemented to assure this community <br />will not become another San Jose. He felt one could plan for <br />20 years. <br />Commissioner Getty felt it was unfortunate that many people who <br />raised serious concerns earlier in the evening were not present <br />a t the end of the meeting to hear the answers to their concerns. <br />One of the things that bothered Commissioner Getty is when someone <br />tries to tell people where they can live and work. She felt the <br />development should proceed and the City should try to make the <br />community as balanced as possible but without the restriction <br />of telling everyone where they should live and work. <br />Chairman Jamieson felt the EIR prepared was one of the most complete <br />he has ever seen in his eight year tenure on the Planning Commission. <br />He felt it was inevitable that growth would take place on the <br />property in which Hacienda Business Park is located. Many years <br />ago while on the industrial committee of the Chamber of Commerce <br />they tried to attract industry to the City without avail. It <br />is now a pleasure to see such a fine project in the community. <br />Commissioner Wilson said that after reviewing the EIR draft with <br />reference to alternatives that can be considered - no project, <br />Tri-Valley employement center and increased residential capacity, <br />residential community and reduced intensity in development he <br />did not agree with any of those alternatives. <br />Chairman Jamieson discussed the return to the City and people <br />of the City in the way of taxes. The City will get a return on <br />the sales tax of one building along of approximately $700,000 <br />per year. Things like this can certainly improve the quality <br />of life in the City. <br />Commissioner Wilson liked the thought of revenue to the City which <br />might be greater than the City can spend because of Proposition <br />No. 4. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner <br />Getty that the Planning Commission has read and reviewed the EIR <br />and find it complete and adequate for the Growth Management Element <br />amendment as filed under case GP-83-1. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners <br /> and Chairman <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />Doherty, Getty, Lindsey, Wilson <br />Jamieson <br />Resolution No. 2379 was entered and adopted on the EIR as it relates <br />to case GP-83-1 as motioned. <br />-21- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.