My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN031902
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
CCMIN031902
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:34 AM
Creation date
4/13/2002 4:25:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/19/2002
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN031902
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
Ms. Michelotti withdrew her request for acreage. She was really concerned about the top <br />priorities and that Council, in concept, would say here are the objectives, and approve a specific <br />plan. As each use is implemented, then it would go through a review process that would give the <br />public the ability to give input before a final decision is made. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan said Council is not precluded from doing what the Mayor proposed, <br />which is to direct the Task Force to finish the park like plan, list the potential uses, draft the <br />policies for the specific plan, which then gets to Cotmcil for approval before August. If Council <br />decided to go to the ballot at that time, there is an opportunity to do that. If the vote was taken <br />this evening by Council, the matter would not go to the ballot. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis did not think that using fifteen acres for affbrdable housing would interfere <br />with the general park like project. The problem she saw was the uncertainty of the school site. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan said if acreage is not identified, that is not an issue that has to be dealt <br />with at this moment in time. That is a potential use for the property and over time Council would <br />determine how the property is to develop and which uses would be included. That gives more <br />time to find out if the District really wants to pursue that site. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis felt the worst thing about a ballot measure is the hidden controversies that <br />arise. People get sidetracked on issues. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan again stated that going to the ballot is not an issue. Her understanding of <br />Council direction is to finish the plan with a park like theme and a list of potential uses, not <br />identifying acreage or sites for the uses. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala felt the Task Force has done an unbelievable job in identifying the top twenty <br />uses. With all the information that is now available, she asked if staff could prepare the specific <br />plan. Why is it necessary to go back to the Task Force? <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan said the Task Force needs to finish the plan. It has been waiting to find <br />out if Council wanted acreage and site locations for the uses. It is close to finishing the task, <br />unless Council changes its direction. <br /> <br />Ms. Michelotti said it is still necessary to mesh the two committees. <br /> <br />Ms. Ayala felt the policies mentioned by Mayor Pico are extremely important. <br /> <br />Ms. McKeehan indicated those policies would be set forth in the specific plan. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis still had concerns about the big picture with only a list of uses. The park will <br />look different with a high school in the middle of it. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan said only if Council approves a high school in the middle of it. That is <br />not determined yet. It is only a potential use. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 12 03/19/02 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.