My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN060402
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
CCMIN060402
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:35 AM
Creation date
6/19/2002 9:52:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/4/2002
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN060402
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
So the land that Council was to plan was much more expansive than what the City has <br />right now. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico said that was under a different Task Force and under a different set of <br />circumstances than it is now. It was a different Task Fome and Council didn't continue <br />it. The Task Force was reconstituted and then had a new work plan. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala said the reconstituted Task Force was basically the same as the original <br />Task Force that Council appointed when more acreage was involved. When Council <br />originally planned putting the Task Force together, there was 408 acres and the thought <br />process was that the City would do some housing because only 374 houses were going to <br />let be built at that time. In the September 19, 2000 report there is actually a work plan <br />that Council approved for the Committee. She felt Council should at least take a loot at <br />that work plan and decide if we are going to follow it or not. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti referred to the work plan, at Number 10, General Plan, <br />Amendment Specific Plan Plan, Phase II, and Environmental Assessment Document by <br />Staff and Consultants that has just been completed. The Task Force put this together over <br />the last 10 or so months. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala asked if that work plan basically follows Option One of staff <br />recommendation tonight. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said it does. What Option Two does is similar to Option One but delays <br />the vote. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti complimented the Task Force on their work and on their report <br />that came back to Council. She asked about following the option whereby the City has <br />the review by the commissions, etc., with a recommendation back to the Council, so there <br />would be time to place this on the ballot in November. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said if each of the commissions review it in one meeting, then we could <br />make that time frame for putting it on the November ballot. <br /> <br />Mr. Campbell asked about the reality of this truly happening. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said it partly depended on the direction Council would give. If the <br />Council asks for review and request it be brought back at the Council's July 16 meeting, <br />then we relay that to the various commissions. If this were a much more finite plan, or <br />fully conceptualized plan and had a place for everything along the lines of what you were <br />shown at the first community meeting, then it would be more controversarial. The Task <br />Force has done a wonderful job of putting together generalized policies and programs <br />that had support among everyone on the Task Force. There is not really a whole lot to <br />object to by any of the commissions that would review this. That does not mean that <br />there would be some debate over whether one or more of the possible uses, such as <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 10 <br />Minutes <br /> <br />06/04/02 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.