My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN071691
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
CCMIN071691
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:13 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 10:43:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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
322 <br /> <br /> report that Council feels comfortable taking back to the <br /> electorate. But until that point, the option to reconvene the <br /> Committee or a part of it will be open. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler stated that as the head the original Steering <br /> Committee before the election, he felt that the Steering Committee <br /> set up a broad and comprehensive scope of work which the Council <br /> considered and approved. He pointed out that there were some areas <br /> that the Pleasanton Ridgelands Committee was not able to address, <br /> many of which are of little consequence but some of which are <br /> important, such as how to finance the proposed plan, the <br /> alternatives, or the minority proposals. He commented that the <br /> manner in which the Committee was put together, with a majority of <br /> one interest group or another, reflects the level of the citizens' <br /> involvement and that he would not accept any criticism that the <br /> Committee was set up to achieve a particular end. He indicated <br /> that the Committee members worked very long and hard and <br /> accomplished a lot. He concluded that what is left for Council to <br /> do at this point is to have the Planning Commission review the <br /> Final Report, taking all the time necessaryto study the document. <br /> Council can then determine if the Planning Commission's proposal <br /> for a General Plan amendment is as comprehensive as it should be. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver commented that the process he has been hearing, <br /> which includes a review by the Planning Commission, further comment <br /> by the Planning Commission, and alteration by the Planning <br /> Commission and the Council, was different from what he thought it <br /> would be, which is that whatever came out of the Citizens' <br /> Committee would go to the ballot. He asked Staff for some <br /> clarification. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush stated that he has not heard any inconsistency. He <br /> explained that Staff has attempted to take the Committee's Final <br /> Report and put it into the context of a General Plan amendment, <br /> using the majority recommendation as the policies and the programs <br /> for that amendment. He indicated that it would be incumbent upon <br /> the Planning Commission and the Council to look at what Staff has <br /> put together and make sure that it accurately reflects what the <br /> Committee's recommendations are. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler clarified that he did not mean the Planning <br /> Commission to alter the planning aspects of the report; he just <br /> pointed out that there were some elements that needed to be worked <br /> in with the report. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner stated that she finds it difficult to comment on <br /> the proposed plan because it has no analysis. <br /> <br /> - 26 - <br /> 7-16-91 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.