My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN012406
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
CCMIN012406
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:43 AM
Creation date
1/20/2006 1:40:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/24/2006
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN012406
NOTES
Joint Workshop
NOTES 3
Planning Commission
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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 />Ms. McGovern said the east side property is 1,000 acres, significantly larger than the <br />Bernal property, and she felt there were opportunities to do things on the east side that could <br />not be done on the Bernal property, especially with the chain of lakes. She asked why the east <br />side study was never done? <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson said the Planning Commission had recommended it, but the City Council <br />decided not to move forward with it. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern did not want to make decisions about this 1,000 acres without some type <br />of study similar to the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan. It did not make sense to her to make <br />piecemeal decisions. She asked if this could be designated as a study area with suggested <br />uses. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson said that was certainly possible and noted incidents in the past when that <br />was done. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern felt a decision about what to do with the lakes had to be made before <br />deciding on adjacent development. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan asked if there was any environmental contamination identified on any of <br />these sites? He asked what kind of environmental study would be done before development? <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson said that would be part of the General Plan environmental impact report and <br />staff would look at those issues. If it is determined to do a specific plan, that environmental <br />review would be done at that time. He believed Hanson and Kiewit have done preliminary soils <br />testing in the area and have discovered only limited areas where some remediation was <br />required for some contamination. Soil stability would have to be reviewed as well. A general <br />review would be done for the General Plan, but more detailed review would be done for each <br />site as development plans come forward. <br /> <br />up? <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan asked if contamination is found, who would be responsible for cleaning it <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson said the existing owners would be responsible, even if it were sold to <br />someone else in the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan talked about evaluating adjacent uses to the subject property and asked <br />how that would be done? <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson said staff would put the pieces together to see what was the most <br />reasonable plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan referred to the east side study and noted when the first Ponderosa project <br />was referended, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council do an east side <br />study. That has never occurred. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern asked if a previous Council had approved a 114-unit senior housing <br />development on the school site if the District does not use it for a school? <br /> <br />Joint Workshop <br />City Council/Planning Commission <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />01/24/06 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.