My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN061396
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
CCMIN061396
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:45 AM
Creation date
5/13/1999 10:26:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/13/1996
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
Mr. Chapman indicated this is a major change in density and could affect other things <br />like the sewer line. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michel6tti believed the survey was specifically for the golf course issue, even though <br />it does address a few other matters. She felt Mr. Chapman's concern about the two-acre plan <br />may not be addressed in the survey. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta indicated the survey originated from discussions about the golf course and <br />its effects on the neighborhood. There were requests to get independent information through a <br />survey and this came about after the General Plan discussions. It is possible that decisions may <br />be made before information specific to the General Plan is received. When you look at the <br />General Plan, Council must consider how it wants to handle this whole area. Council can <br />suggest staff add questions or proceed with the open-ended questions to get feedback. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarvet felt it was difficult to separate the issues important to this area: annexation, <br />conditions of annexation, what it will take for the residents to agree to a golf course. He does <br />not want the residents to think there is any kind of commitment or agreement for development <br />rights because of discussions about the golf course. He would like the residents of the Happy <br />Valley area to get together and reach a consensus vision for the area. This has always been a <br />controversial area with differences of opinion. He encouraged Mr. Chapman to pass on <br />information to anyone out there in terms of his concerns. <br /> <br /> Roger Smith, 6344 Alisal, Vice President of the Alisal Improvement Club, felt Council <br />should go ahead and approve the General Plan. It is a general plan. Later there will be a more <br />specific set of proposals and those can be approved too. If that means Council has to change <br />something in the General Plan, that what it is there for. He also did not support the 4/5ths vote <br />for exactly these reasons. A plan is a plan until it is changed. He and others like the survey <br />as proposed. He felt open-ended questions will get a lot of input and if it were too specific, it <br />could get bogged down. His organization has sent out mailings to encourage everyone to <br />respond to the survey. Mr. Smith said the two acre concept came from the Steering Committee. <br />Many residents are not in favor of any development and would like the area to stay as it is as <br />agriculture and open space. If there were development, they would like rural density of five <br />acres. Many other land owners want higher densities but he felt the Steering Committee debated <br />the subject and earne to a sensible compromise. <br /> <br /> There was no further testimony. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarvet believed there is a whole list of issues for the Council to go through. The <br />proposed meeting for June 25 will have to be rescheduled because Ms. Mohr needs to be <br />present. Once staff arrives at that date, notices will be sent. <br /> <br />06/13/96 <br /> - 12 - <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.