My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN051998
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
CCMIN051998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:27 AM
Creation date
2/3/1999 4:43:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/19/1998
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Cooper said no. It was an option that the ordinance be modified but changing the <br />ordinance may create some legal problems. He felt the maximum amount of growth <br />management should not be approved unless the infrastructure had caught up to the growth. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver said if the Planning Commission wanted the ordinance changed to seek a <br />lower annual growth development the City would probably get sued. He felt a better way might <br />be to include in the ordinance a Planning Commission process for making a review of the state <br />of the City and making recommendations to the Council. He would like to seek an annual <br />reduction as well. He felt the process is there that allows the Planning Commission and the City <br />Council to do this based on information presented and the General Plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cooper said there are quality of life statements in the General Plan. Balancing these <br />statements is a difficult task. He wondered if attending one's neighborhood schools was in the <br />General Plan. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala said the school issue is in the General Plan. She mentioned the buildings <br />going in by the Mohr School are stick structures and will be permanent two-story structures. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked Mr. Cooper what he thought the Planning Commission' s role would <br />be in the growth management process? <br /> <br /> Mr. Cooper said the general concept is the Planning Commission would look at when <br /> development would come on line as well as what should be developed. <br /> <br /> There were no more speakers. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver said the intention of the group that discussed the growth management <br /> program was not to exclude the Planning Commission process. He would like to see the <br /> ordinance modified to include that the Planning Commission will review and make <br /> recommendations to the state of the City report. He did not agree with incorporating in the <br /> document the idea of seeking to reduce the annual growth rate in the short term. He felt the <br /> ordinance already provided for reduction of growth allocation if the infrastructure is not in place. <br /> He said major PUD's that were requesting development agreements, or major project status and <br /> allocation of growth management, should be reviewed and recommended through the Planning <br /> Commission at the time of the PUD approval. This is the final key as to when it gets built and <br /> how it fits into the overall development of the City. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked if he was asking for the Planning Commission to replace the <br /> Council growth management committee. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver said no. He would still like to have the committee. He wanted the <br /> Planning Commission to give its recommendations regarding the numbers in categories and how <br /> that should be implemented based on the state of the City report. <br /> <br /> Pleasanton City Council 17 05/19/98 <br /> Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.