My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 09/12/72
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1970-1979
>
1972
>
PC 09/12/72
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2017 11:45:12 AM
Creation date
4/30/2007 4:09:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/12/1972
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 09/12/72
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
~y~~s"~'~°y CITY of PLEASANTON <br />~ ~~~ r <br />~~~° Planning Commission <br />~rrav ~ <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />~CtB September 12, 1972 <br />Time : 8:0o PM <br />PIQ C8: Pleasa nton Justice Court <br />Mr. Patton explained the system whereby his <br />department computed the number of acreages <br />to be dedicated to the park system, which <br />is approximately 441.3 acres, or 5.02 acres <br />per 1,000 population, as specified in the <br />current General Plan estimate for the holdi <br />capacity. <br />Our General Plan consultants, Livingston & <br />Blayney were asked to review this matter and <br />they have agreed with the concept of the <br />extended park system. However, the Parks <br />and Recreation Commission has not had suffi- <br />cient time to hold public hearings and have <br />indicated a desire to withhold final rec- <br />ommendation in order that it may be tied in <br />as part of the new General Plan review. <br />It is the Planning Commission's understandi <br />that A 1 terns tive ~~3 a s noted in the memo- <br />randum dated July 14, 1972, from Mr. Patton <br />to the City Council is the favored method <br />for computing required park acreage. <br />Discussion ensued regarding the possibility <br />of requiring about 150 ft. of linear park <br />on each side of a development. The Commissi <br />recognizes the inherent problems involved <br />in maintaining and policing these linear par: <br />areas. The question of keeping as much <br />available park acreage for active, recrea- <br />tional use as opposed to diverting a portion <br />to be utilized in a more passive manner - as <br />is characteristic with linear park systems - <br />was discussed. <br />The consensus of opinion among the Commissio <br />was that the recommends tion of the Parks and <br />Recreation Commission was a necessary and <br />valid one and a motion was offered by Commi- <br />ssioner Pereira, seconded by Commissioner <br />McLain and carried, recommending to City <br />Council that the increase in park dedication <br />fees, be adopted as noted in Alternative ~~3 <br />with the provision that the ultimate need of <br />the total acreage required be studied under <br />public hearings by the Parks and Rec. Comm. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.