My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 022206
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
PC 022206
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 3:23:32 PM
Creation date
7/12/2007 9:16:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/22/2006
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 022206
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
Commissioner Roberts believed that the Municipal Code defined various operating hours. <br />Chairperson Arkin noted that he had never heard any complaints regazding morning <br />maintenance lighting at the sports pazks. <br />Mr. Rasmussen noted that he would bring that information back to the Commission in the <br />Final EIR. <br />In response to an inquiry by Commission Pearce regazding whether the buses going <br />through the property were included in the noise evaluation, Mr. Rasmussen confirmed <br />that they were. <br />Chairperson Arkin noted that he supported most of the comments made and recalled that <br />ten years ago, there were three votes on the City Council to support putting 3,500 homes <br />on this property, versus this park which contained a large amount of open space. In <br />comparison, he believed this was an academic exercise, and he was very pleased to see <br />this project. <br />No action was taken. <br />The Planning Commission recessed for a break at 8:33 p.m. <br />Chairperson Arkin reconvened the meeting at 8:42 p.m. <br />b. Public Facilities Element of the General Plan <br />Review and provide comment on a Draft Public Facilities Element of the General <br />Plan. <br />Ms. Stern summazized the staff report and noted that this was an optional element in the <br />General Plan but that its inclusion in the General Plan Update would give it as much <br />weight as any other element. State law did not provide for specific contents of this <br />element. She described the update and reorganization process and added that a section on <br />sustainability had been added, which stressed an emphasis on conservation, recycling, <br />and reuse of resources, as opposed to expanding facilities. A distinction was made <br />between resources and facilities, with resource information moved to the Conservation <br />and Open Space Element. She detailed the main changes to the policies and programs, <br />including the following: <br />1. Goa12, promoting sustainability, was included; <br />2. Goals covering most of the major topics; <br />3. Program 7.1 added detail regazding recycled water; <br />4. Programs 8.5, 8.6 and 8.7 have been added entirely in order to address the issue of <br />water conservation more thoroughly; <br />5. Program 18.12 was added regazding taste and hazdness of water; <br />6. Program 18.13 was added regazding water supply. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 22, 2006 Page 8 of 21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.