My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN040291
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
CCMIN040291
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:13 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 11:19:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
131 <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Mohr, and seconded by Ms. Scribner, to <br />adopt an interim public notice guideline that the existing 300 foot <br />radius for noticing be expanded to include additional geographic <br />areas which may logically be impacted by the project, plus any <br />other interested individuals and associations, and to direct Staff <br />to complete the automated noticing plan in order that Council may <br />make other amendments to the minimum noticing requirements, as set <br />forth in the Staff Report. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Mohr, Scribner, Tarver and Mayor <br /> Mercer <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Item 12d <br />Development Review, Public Hearinq and California Environmental <br />Quality Act Process (SR 91:123) <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver indicated that he was in favor of having separate <br />public hearings for the Williamson Act contract cancellation, the <br />EIR and the project because one decision can affect the other <br />decisions, and when all the items are considered under one public <br />hearing, the public may not perceive the distinction between the <br />decisions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer commented that the development review process <br />should be condensed to make it easy for the public to follow. He <br />suggested that public scoping meetings be held at the City Council <br />level rather than at the Staff level, and that all public review <br />periods on the draft EIR, on both the Planning Commission and the <br />City Council levels, be done in writing. He also proposed that <br />there be separate public hearings, but at the same Council meeting, <br />for the EIR and the project. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr agreed with Mr. Mercer that there should be separate <br />hearings for the EIR and the project; however, the hearings should <br />be held at different meetings to separate the two items <br />cpompletely. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner concurred. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler indicated that separating the hearings makes it <br />difficult for the public to decide when to ~a~e thei. r co~ents. He <br />added that people usually comment on the project rather than on the <br />EIR and that Council could sort out the statements before taking <br />~ction ~n either ~he FIR or the project. <br /> <br /> - 25 - <br /> 4-2-91 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.