My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN092705
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
CCMIN092705
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:42 AM
Creation date
9/23/2005 9:37:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/27/2005
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN092705
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
<br />preferred to look at the Circulation Element and start combining the two now. Then look at <br />areas that have not been discussed in detail and focus on them to move forward. It sounded <br />to her that the process started a few years ago was being reinvented. <br />Matt Sullivan agreed with some of what the Planning Commissioners have said, since <br />he was there when it happened. He wanted to make certain the comments made by the <br />community at that time are not lost. He noted there are new people and new <br />Councilmembers, so it is necessary to go through the process again. He felt it may be <br />possible to combine some of the topics even if it means a little longer meeting. He was <br />concerned that some of the Planning Commissioners who have been involved in this from the <br />beginning will no longer be on the Commission. He supported some kind of compressed <br />schedule. He questioned whether it would take six months to develop the draft EIR. On the <br />list of sites, the last group labeled as "other" is designated as not to be considered. He <br />disagreed and felt he would like to discuss uses on some of them, such as the Kaiser site, St. <br />Augustine Church, etc. He agreed with the list of issues presented by staff for discussion. <br />Regarding eliminating presentations by specific applicants, he agreed in general. For <br />example, presentations have been made regarding the southeast hills area and EIRs are in <br />process, so no further presentation is necessary. However, there are new concepts for <br />Hacienda Business Park and Staples Ranch and he felt a presentation should be given on <br />those topics. He noted the Planning Commission received presentations in the last process <br />and it was helpful. <br />Ms. Maas wanted a time limit on those presentations. <br />Jerry Thorne referred to the references in the staff report to memos that are on the <br />website and requested copies of them and their attachments, along with the work of the <br />Planning Commission. He agreed that some of the items listed as "other" should be <br />discussed, such as St. Augustine's. He wanted to have a presentation regarding Hacienda <br />Business Park. <br />Mr. Iserson said staff would provide copies to all the members when the items come <br />forward for discussion. <br />Cindy McGovern had a few questions regarding the staff report. There was a property <br />called the Walsh site, which she could not find. She asked if the name changed from <br />something else? <br />Mr. Iserson said it is a very narrow strip of property along Valley Avenue along the <br />railroad corridor. <br />Ms. McGovern asked if staff perceived any density changes in any currently approved <br />Specific Plans? <br />Mr. Iserson said a specific plan would have to be modified in order to change a density. <br />That would be part of this process, but staff was not focusing on specific plan areas, since <br />most of them have been recently approved. One exception would be Staples Ranch. He <br />Joint Workshop <br />City Council/Planning Commission 4 09/27/05 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.