CCMIN101282 - Laserfiche WebLink

219 Councilmember Mercer stated there is an unsightly vent visible from the road at the Hopyard Road Shopping Center which should be screened to comply with conditions of approval. Mr. Harris advised that it will be screened as soon as construction in the area is completed. Councilmember Mercer advised there are loose and rotten boards on the bridge at Blackbird Drive into the Youth Sports Park which should be replaced. Mr. Warnick advised this was done today. Councilmember Brandes asked when notices would be sent out on the special meet- ing between Planning Commission, City Council, and the residents of the Mohr/Martin area scheduled for October 25, 1982. Mr. Harris advised that a notice and report would be mailed next week to all effected residents. Councilmember Mohr stated there have been some informal staff meetings regarding Valley BART service. She stated this is an important issue because of significant changes in the Valley in the last five years; and that there will be additional changes because of increased employment, less school bus service and a greater need for satisfactory bus service. Mr. Walker stated that one meeting had been held be- tween MTC, BART staff, and the city managers of Livermore, Dublin, and Pleasanton, as well as the operators of Rideo, to review the report that was presented five years ago and to study possible needed changes to this study. He advised the next meeting for this group is scheduled sometime in November. Councilmember Mohr asked to be advised the exact date and place of the meeting. Council requested a report be made to them after the meeting to bring them up to date on this issue. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS General Plan Review Mr. Walker presented his report (SR 82:409) dated October 4, 1982, regarding this matter. Mr. John Innes, Chairperson of the General plan Review Steering Committee, stated the Committee agrees with the staff report with the exception of two areas. Referring to land use problem areas, Mr. Innes assured:COu~il it was not the committee's intent to do a complete review of the 23 properti~S~s~t~ forth on the list but this list re- presents the areas that the committee felt wer~ sensitive areas and should be con- sidered in their review and recommendations. He added there would be no in-depth study on all 23 items. Mr. Innes stated the other area of concern in the report re- lated to the scope of review being narrowed. He advised it is the feeling of the committee that there are a series of major concerns that need to be addressed, i.e., lands in the General Plan designated "I" which have not gone through approvals of any type and should be studied by the General Plan Review Committee as to how they will be developed, and properties with PUD approval but with no development plans approved as yet. He stated this is to assure Council of consistency based on the ground rules which the City now feels appropriate for development in the community. He advised there has already been some inconsistency and the Committee feels it must have the ability to bring these specific items to Council's attention if the committee deems it necessary. He advised the committee does-not plan to spend a lot of time review- ing conditions of approval on existing PUD's but they did want to have the right to bring any inconsistencies to Council for individual action'if inconsistencies are found. Mr. Innes advised that another area of major concern relates to the needed monitoring for compliance to conditions of approval on PUD applications. He stated the City is lacking in enforcement of conditions of approval and he felt that estab- lishment of an effective monitoring system should be considered so that compliance of conditions would be assured. He stated the most needed conditions of compliance are related to LOS levels at intersections, noise levels, and environmental levels. Mr. Innes concluded by stating that the Steering Committee concurs with the remainder of the staff report. 3. 10/12/82