Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Stern said that staff could incorporate a review of each of the General Plan <br /> elements Jn the same way that the Planning Commission does. In terms of the land use <br /> and circulation work, there might be weeks that staff does not have the material to <br /> provide to Council. Staff could provide Council with other materials and topics other <br /> than land use and circulation during this six-month period. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fialho said that during down time, staff could provide an informational review <br /> of each of the General Plan elements regularly without impacting the schedule. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky concurred with Ms. McGovern's suggestion. He did not want to be <br /> presented with a new element and then have to discuss it and vote on it. He wanted to <br /> be provided sufficient time to discuss the elements of the General Plan and hold several <br /> meetings so that Council could solicit the community for its input. He believed all of the <br /> General Plan elements deserve the same amount of public involvement. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fialho said that staff could include a two-part process. At one meeting, staff <br /> would be able to provide Council information from an educational perspective, and at the <br /> second meeting, Council would be given the opportunity to give staff direction. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan believed it seemed optimistic to expect that between now and <br /> September the Council could agree on a Preferred Land Use and Circulation Plan. He <br /> asked if this was a realistic objective. <br /> <br /> Mr. Iserson said the schedule is a bit optimistic. Staff understands that it needs <br />--- to check in with the Council as well as receive input from the public. By the same token, <br /> staff did hear at the last joint Council and Planning Commission workshop that there was <br /> some interest in trying to move the process along as quickly as possible. Staff <br /> understands adjustments to this schedule may need to be made if the land use and <br /> circulation analysis is more extensive than anticipated, or if issues arise that require <br /> additional discussion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan asked who the stakeholders are that are mentioned in the staff <br /> report. <br /> <br /> Ms. Stern said that the stakeholders could be individual property owners, <br /> neighborhood groups or homeowners associations, the School District or an <br /> organization that operates citywide. These stakeholders need to be involved in the <br /> General Plan update process so that they do not feel that by the end of the process they <br /> are just learning about the content of the General Plan. <br /> <br /> Ms. McGovern asked staff if it had considered conducting a community survey on <br /> some of the major issues that are a part of the draft General Plan. <br /> <br /> Ms. Stern noted that a questionnaire was provided to the Commissions and the <br /> feeling was that the Commissions were plugged into the community to a large extent and <br /> would be able to identify those issues. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fialho said staff had not planned on conducting a survey unless it received <br /> Council direction. Staff could conduct a statistically valid survey on community services, <br /> programs and activities if it wanted to seek input that way. He would want to make it <br /> <br /> Pleasanton City Council 17 03/01/05 <br /> Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />