Laserfiche WebLink
°".,"~ CITY of PLEASANTON <br />Planning Commission <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />DGtB ; October 29, 1975 <br />Time : 8 ~ oo P.M. <br />Pleasanton Justice Court <br />Place; <br />Approved, <br />Resolution 1376 <br />Report regarding recent state popu- esolution <br />lation projections for Pleasanton and econded: <br />their effects on the General Plan yes: <br />Revision. oes: <br /> bsent: <br />Secretary Harris noted changes on bstain: <br />Page 4 of the staff report, which <br />were passed out to the Commission. <br />A map denoting the planning area <br />was also put up on the board for <br />the Commission's information. <br />Secretary Harris explained that <br />earlier in the month in a joint <br />meeting between Commission and <br />Council, this same map was reviewed <br />and that it pertained to the latest <br />State population projections that <br />the Water Resources Board and EPA <br />formulated. <br />On the map, Mr. Harris indicated the ',I <br />three phases of development 'and j, <br />explained each one, breaking the i~ <br />growth pattern down into two ten- ~ <br />year periods. <br />~~ <br />He concluded by stating that the City'j <br />attempted to segregate the different ~' <br />types of developments in these two <br />ten-year periods. Since the October <br />6 joint Commission/Council meeting, <br />more study has gone into this sub- <br />ject and the staff has come to con- <br />clusion that it probably would not <br />make much sense to show phasing <br />since where these developments act- <br />ually occur would be subject to <br />vagaries and the City should look <br />at a growth management plan, such as <br />has been adopted by Petaluma and <br />Davis. <br />Rather than lay out exactly where <br />everything should be in the City, <br />-2- <br />