My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 10/26/83
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1983
>
PC 10/26/83
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 10:22:46 AM
Creation date
4/27/2007 4:13:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/26/1983
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 10/26/83
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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 />MINUILS <br />~'LANNIN~' COi'~IISSION <br />10/26/83 <br />Page 20 <br />Ben Tarver asked the Chairman if he could say a couple of more <br />things. Chairman Jamieson granted this request. <br />Mr. Tarver stated that the consultant indicated that it was not <br />unusual to reduce the review period from 45 to 30 days. Mr. Tarver <br />said this is not true according to Price Walker. Chairman Jamieson <br />then suggested Mr. Tarver get together with the speaker to resolve <br />the issue. Mr. Tarver then spoke to sewer capacity stating that <br />if the general plan is amended, the projects will not be inconsistent <br />with the general plan. <br />Joe Callahan stated that they have responded to all responses <br />of the EIR to October 14, 1983 which is one day short of 45 days <br />despite the fact that the Clearinghouse did agree that a 30 day <br />review period was allowed. Further he said a supplemental EIR <br />is frequently granted a 30 day review period as opposed to 45 <br />days. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />Discussion by the Planning Commission <br />Commissioner Doherty said it is important that it be pointed out <br />that the Commission has had available to it, as pointed out by <br />someone else earliler, for study the original EIR, including comments <br />and response thereto, and the new EIR along with comments and <br />response to that. They have had the time to study all of the <br />CC&R's, the Design Guidelines, the entire development plan, etc. <br />The Planning Commission has used diligence in reviewing this project <br />from top to bottom and has used diligence in considering the Growth <br />Management Element of the General Plan. All alternatives have <br />been reviewed by the Planning Commission as it relates to the <br />general plan amendment alternatives and as it relates to Volume <br />II of the EIR. The Planning Commmission has looked at the alternatives <br />of the proposed Ordinance 1040, PUD-81-30, as outlined in Volume <br />II of the EIR. In his opinion, the alternatives proposed are <br />not feasible by virtue of the fact that the developers can proceed <br />under the existing zoning. This would give less control to the <br />City than would an approved PUD. <br />Commissioner Wilson said he has reviewed everything. The major <br />issue he was concerned with dealt with the level of service of <br />traffic. He is pleased that the developers and staff have agreed <br />to the incorporation of the general plan review committee's recommendation. <br />It resolves concerns he has had in the past. <br />Commissioner Wilson also indicated that all concerns brought up <br />by speakers in opposition have been eliminated by the 110 conditions <br />imposed on the project. He has read the EIRs and is in agreement <br />with Commissioner Doherty. <br />-20- <br />__ _ . _ . _ <br />T.. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.