My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN012197
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
CCMIN012197
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:36 AM
Creation date
5/10/1999 5:20:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/21/1997
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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
various activities, but these facilities are not adequate for the increased population in the area. <br />He wanted the Council to establish a written plan for the neighborhood, put it on the agenda for <br />regular follow-up and halt further development until the park is built. Brian Swift indicated a <br />park was planned as part of the E.J. Spanos project, which was rejected by Council. Because <br />of that, the offer of land for purchase for the park was not accepted. <br /> <br />6. PUBHC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS <br /> <br />Item 6a <br />New DevelOpment Applications and their WeSt LaS Positas Interchange lmUlications. <br />(SR97:35) <br /> <br /> Brian Swift presented the staff report. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated that them may need to be an exception to the proposal regarding <br />projects that have development agreements, because they run longer than two years. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked for clarification regarding projects with approved PUD's and <br />parcels that require design review. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated the condition would only attach at the time that design review <br />approval is granted. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis asked if Council could deny a project solely because of its impacts on the <br />interchange? <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush explained that if Council truly wants to discourage applications during the <br />study period, the proposal allows staff to give this information at the counter, so applicants do <br />not spend time and money processing an application the Council is not interested in reviewing. <br />Even if that policy were adopted, if an application was otherwise consistent with the General <br />Plan, staff would advise Council that a project not be turned down solely on that basis. Staff <br />can discourage applications, but he did not feel it was advisable to turn down an application on <br />that ground alone. <br /> <br /> Vice Mayor Pico declared the public hearing open. <br /> <br /> Jim Pease, 4863 Canary Drive, wanted everyone to be included in this process. He <br />wanted to find mitigations to allow traffic to meet the General Plan standards. He did not feel <br />it was fair to have the business community wait eighteen months while the study is being <br />completed. The office market is now quite good and he was concerned about the impacts on the <br />business community. The Chamber of Commerce has consulted with traffic engineering experts <br />who believe the study could be completed within six months. Eighteen months is too long. <br /> <br /> 4 1/21/97 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.