My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 08/27/86
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1986
>
PC 08/27/86
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 11:04:48 AM
Creation date
4/23/2007 4:27:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/27/1986
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 08/27/86
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
Minutes <br />August 27, 1986 <br />Planning Commission <br />Commissioner Inner felt the best way to monitor this would <br />probably be through having expiration dates on approved projects. <br />Commissioner Innes wanted some statement in the policies <br />somewhere controlling this development aspect. Mr. Swift stated <br />that once a project gets growth management approval, there are <br />time limits which have to be met. PUD development approval does <br />not expire. Design Review Board approval expires after a year, <br />however, the applicant may request an extension prior to the <br />approval time. The time allowed for tentative map approval has <br />been lengthened by State Law and allows six-nine years before a <br />final map has to be filed. <br />Chairman Lindsey asked Mr. Swift if a City has the right to not <br />renew a project. Mr. Swift said a City could exercise this right <br />if traffic conditions, or other conditions have changed since the <br />original approval. Commissioner Innes felt he would like to see <br />the results of some of the theories used in the approval process. <br />Commissioner Michelotti suggested the Commission ask staff to <br />look into this a little further and come back to the Commission <br />with a report on the merits and ramifications of project <br />expiration control. Mr. swift stated that one way to do this <br />would be to amend the PUD ordinance. Commissioner Hoyt felt <br />restraint on the growth management plan for the unbuilt units <br />might be the best way to regulate expiration dates of <br />development. Commissioner Inner was concerned with seeing what <br />conditions have changed since the time of development approval <br />for any particular project. Chairman Lindsey felt this to be a <br />significant issue and one which requires public testimony. He <br />did not feel it could be acted on at this meeting. The other <br />Commissioners agreed. <br />CIRCULATION <br />After further discussion, the Planning Commission agreed to the <br />addition on page 6 of the staff report "Page III-34, Revise <br />Figure III-5 to add a pedestrian bridge over I-680." <br />Commissioner Michelotti referred to Table III-5, Page III-25 of <br />the General Plan. <br />Commissioner Michelotti discussed enforcement to encourage the <br />implementation of the traffic computer so that it can be <br />determined where we are now in terms of traffic control. Mr. Lee <br />stated that the General Plan includes policies for the City to <br />work with Caltrans regarding traffic and circulation. <br />Commissioner Michelotti emphatically stated that the Chart shown <br />as Table II-5 showing LOS "D" and "F" at some intersections is <br />totally unacceptable to her. <br />Commissioner Inner then asked if there was nothing that could be <br />done on First Street. Mr. Lee stated that the abandoned Southern <br />Pacific right-of-way could perhaps be used but staff does not <br />recommend it because it would preclude other options including <br />light rail, parking and other uses to be evaluated in the <br />Downtown Specific Plan. <br />- 11 - <br />_ _ _...~. __ _ _ _ __._ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ r <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.