My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN071596
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
CCMIN071596
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:45 AM
Creation date
5/13/1999 10:42:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/15/1996
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
Ms. Micheloff indicated Exhibit 4 only has the changes that have been recommended and <br />there are things in the Minutes of July 1 and July 2 that have to be reviewed if there is any <br />concern about the votes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico felt Council would be redoing everything done at the last two meetings. There <br />was substantial discussion and public input. He felt Council should look at only those areas that <br />a Councilmember may wish to change a position from the straw vote or an area where a definite <br />change is desired. He did not want to go through the exhibit item by item. <br /> <br /> Ms. Miehelotti concurred, but there are inconsistent votes for various reasons and those <br />items should be readdressed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis requested starting discussions with Foothill Road and referred to the letter <br />submitted by Mr. Kliment. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated Mr. Kliment has suggested that rather than change the classification <br />of Foothill Road from Stoneridge Drive all the way to Muirwood South to a two-lane road with <br />left turn pocket, that the section from Stoneridge Drive to Highland Oaks Drive be changed <br />permanently in the General Plan to two-lane with left turn pockets. Staff has not changed its <br />position. Staff has asked property owners who are developing along that corridor to make <br />improvements only to the interim plan, not the final four lane plan, because there is not the <br />required nexus for a four lane contribution when there is only a small project. <br /> <br />Gross Developable Acreage <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Michelotti, seconded by Ms. Mohr, to modify page 114, last <br />paragraph, sentence 3, to delete "whether the arroyo is proposed for dedication or nots and <br />add after "developable acres", "Improvement to and/or dedication of privately owned <br />arroyos should be considered when assessing densities above the median point.s <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr felt if Council is trying to get land to complement the trail system or preserve <br />an arroyo the Council should have the ability to review an individual application and determine <br />the value to City. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti indicated there would be no density there, but if major improvements <br />were done to the arroyo and dedicated it to the City, it should be considered as part of the <br />project. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis believed the Council already has the discretion to look at a project and <br />consider the arroyos. She was concerned about having property dedicated to the City that it does <br />not want. <br /> <br />07/15/96 <br /> -21 - <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.