My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN090985
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1985
>
CCMIN090985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:50:22 AM
Creation date
11/9/1999 12:10:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
417 <br /> <br />Mr. Swift stated that we cannot access property that is outside <br />our Sphere of Influence. Alameda County Local Agency Formation <br />Commission (LAFCO) would have to change our Sphere of Influence. <br />This procedure would be initiated by the City. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Butler would like to see Sunol included in our <br /> Planning Area but we should make it clear to the people of that <br /> community that annexation is not a way of eliminating the <br /> existence of Sunol. They may wish to incorporate but it would be <br /> to our advantage if they did not. <br /> <br />Commissioner Michelotti stated that perhaps we should consider <br />our current Planning Area and look at that first; then <br />consider the ridgelands and other areas.- <br /> <br /> Commissioner Lindsay stated that we should include as much area <br /> as we possibly can so that we can control our own environment. <br /> <br />The general consensus was to annex to the west to Palomares Road, <br />South to Highway 84 and east to Livermore. <br /> <br />Commissioner Innes stated that if we are going to increase our <br />Planning Area, we have the responsibility to plan it well. <br /> <br />Jobs/Housing <br /> <br />Mr. Lee stated that both the Industrial General Plan Review <br />Committee and the Residential Review Committee spent many hours <br />on this subject. We all seem to like the kinds of business parks <br />that have been approved so far. Should any of our approved <br />industrial parks be converted to other uses? Typically, we <br />should allocate no more industrial or commercial land uses than <br />we can absorb. We have high quality and good residential land. <br />Do we need more? <br /> <br />Councilmember Brandes asked if it is necessary for us to have a <br />definition of Jobs/Housing in the General Plan. Mr. Lee answered <br />that it was not necessary but because of legal action, it would <br />be a good idea to allude to it. <br /> <br />Mayor Mercer felt that we do not need to provide a job for <br />everyone who lives in Pleasanton although he is interested in the <br />population and the people who will find jobs here. <br /> <br />Councilmember Wood commented that we have a large percentage of <br />hi-tech employers in our area and this is desirable. If there <br />should be a hi-tech business slump, then what? <br /> <br />Mr. Lee responded that these offices are leasable and office <br />space could be used by many kinds of users including service <br />related users. Mr. Lee noted that we have few heavy industrial <br />uses in our area except for sand and gravel. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wilson pointed out that we would not get <br />manufacturing because we don't have sewer capacity. <br /> <br /> - 2 - <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.