PC 10/26/83 - Laserfiche WebLink

~_ MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/83 Page 19 Commissioner Wilson asked if the Committee is satisfied with Condition No. 2 of the PUD. Mr. Innes said he was not sure if this is consistent with the Meyer and Reynolds and Brown as well as other developments. He urged that the General Plan Committee recommendation be implemented into project approval at this time. Joe Callahan, stated that no new facts were brought up by any of the project opponents. He also said he feels it is possible to plan for 20 years. Mr. Callahan said they are compelled by state law to look at the impacts of projects on a regional basis and that if Pleasanton is going to continue to be a fine place to live and receive the benefit of economic growth, the Tri-Valley has to be reviewed on a land planning and transportation basis. He further stated that CC&Rs are strictly enforced, conditions are in the PUD relating to truck use and that the subdivision and street planning has been done in such a fashion that truck use can be readily directed to the northerly most east-west street which is Gibraltar Drive. Further the Police Department is well are of these restrictions and will ticket violators. Mr. Callahan said the principles in the business park have every financial incentive in the world to ensure that freeway improvements, interchange .improvements and various arterial improvements are done in a timely manner. They are working with various consultants, Caltrans and the City in forming an assessment district to accommodate the changes. He reviewed the proposed schedule of completion. He referred to the computer control system which has been installed in the City to control the operation of all signals within the City. The computer will also have the capability to monitor all intersections where it is installed. Monthly reports will be able to be pulled from the system allowing them to stay ahead of any possible situation which needs attention. Commissioner Doherty asked if Mr. Callahan would have any objections to putting the general plan review committee's recommendations in recommending project approval. Mr. Callahan said they have no objections. Mr. Harris stated that the staff had no problem with doing this either. Commissioner Doherty then stated they will probably recommend in their motion that it be included. Mr. Callahan stated they are required to provide alternatives either with the scenario for amending the growth management element or the PUD by CEQA for alternatives which are not feasible. He stated that the GME amendment does not change land use, it simply clarifies the presumed inconsistency in the general plan. No project on the GME means that the development would continue under the existing zoning. They would still be subject to their private deed restrictions on a parcel by parcel basis. The City, however, would not have some of the legal controls if the GME were not changed and the PUD were not readopted. He addressed the Tri-Valley employment center. He said it is interesting to note that an analysis recently completed saw the buildout of the 22 projects at around 92% of the estimate. In time, if this trend continues, the actual employment will be substantially less than projected in the EIR. -19- __ .._~___,._____.. _--.~,..,.~ r..__.,~.~,.x ,_ __.__ .,~_ _ y ...