My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 04/01/96
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
PC 04/01/96
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2013 12:12:45 PM
Creation date
2/23/2005 3:49:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/1/1996
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 4/1/96
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
<br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> <br />Their specific issues are: <br /> <br />The density afforded is not reasonable and is not good planning. <br /> <br />Opposes changes in the growth management plan that allowable annual units be <br />reduced from 650 to 350 units. Advised that a letter from the Pleasanton City <br />Attorney agrees with their concern for this drastic reduction and believes an attempt <br />to lower growth management figures will cause litigation. <br /> <br />Concerned that the supply of affordable housing has not kept pace with the expansion <br />of jobs (Subregional Planning Element). <br /> <br />Concerned about the super majority vote required to change the General Plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Wendt proposed the Commission reject the current General Plan Update in its current <br />form; otherwise, they will be forced to litigate. <br /> <br />Jeff Colvin, 1726 Orchard Way, feels that most of the changes in the General Plan Update <br />are in direct opposition to the vote of the sub-committees and that the General Plan Update <br />does not reflect public opinion. He believes the Steering Committee's actions have <br />reinforced the general public opinion that they cannot impact political events that affect their <br />lives. <br /> <br />. The specifics of the General Plan Update which he finds objectionable are: <br /> <br />The West Las Positas interchange was removed from the General Plan as a result of <br />the "not-in-my-backyard" concept, ignoring the Circulation Sub-committee <br />recommendations. He would like the West Las Positas interchange left in the General <br />Plan Update. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mr. Colvin believes that the Circulation Sub-committee recommendation regarding the <br />Southern Pacific right-of-way should have been a part of the General Plan Update. <br /> <br />Housing cap and build rates are lower than what was originally recommended by the <br />relevant sub-committee. <br /> <br />He is against the requirement of a super majority to make a General Plan amendment. <br />He feels this is a dangerous requirement to put into the General Plan. <br /> <br />He is concerned about the land use changes for the Vineyard corridor, Foothill Road, <br />and South Pleasanton, where land use designations have been changed in the <br />downward direction from previous General Plan. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />April 1, 1996 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.