My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN020696
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
CCMIN020696
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:45 AM
Creation date
5/13/1999 9:58:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/6/1996
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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).
View images
View plain text
especially important since San Francisco is being asked to give the City public and institutionally <br />designated land. <br /> <br /> Judith Fox, 3645 Virgin Island Court, felt strongly that Platon is running out of <br />public and institutional land and needs to protect it. The Church purchased the property eighteen <br />years ago and it has not been a good neighbor. Ms. Fox heard that the Church slated it <br />preferred to sell to a developer rather than to another church, because it could get more money. <br />She was concerned that the loss of public and institutional zoning would force churches and <br />similar uses to go outside the city. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti felt this is a 'Catch 22'. On one hand we are WIling San Francisco there <br />is not enough public and institutional and on the other hand there is a request to rezone this <br />property. If the parcel is too large for church use, she might consider rezoning part of the <br />property, but then the developer would have to make certain any development fit the <br />neighborhood. She agreed with the staff recommendation. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis felt the two issues were: how the neighborhood feels about the matter and <br />the broader issue of preservation of the public and institutional land. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarvex felt the issue is whether Council is willing to pursue a General Plan <br />amendment. He felt some direction should be given to the neighborhood regarding the Council's <br />position on the issue before proceeding with some other solution. <br /> <br /> David Lamont, 3553 Wind Cave Court, of the Valley Trails Homeowners Association, <br />appreciated Council's comments. He felt *compromise' was the wrong word to use. They were <br />hoping Braddock & Logan would come back with a plan that would overwhelm the <br />neighborhood, and they are giving them on more chance to do that. There have been 117 letters <br />and meetings on this topic in the community. The neighborhood wants this issue resolved so <br />it can stop battling to preserve the zoning. He had 576 signatures from people who oppose a <br />change in the zoning. It would have to be a very special plan to change their minds. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico supported retaining the existing zoning. The neighborhood would have to show <br />overwhelming support of a project to make him change his mind. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush clarified that it was the General Plan designation that is at issue, not the <br />zoning. <br /> <br /> This matter was then continued indefinitely. <br /> <br />02106/96 4 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.