My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 031407
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
PC 031407
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 3:29:20 PM
Creation date
8/17/2007 10:10:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/14/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
services and the Economic Vitality Committee has been discussing this as a potential <br />goal. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson believed the City should protect its fiscal health and credit rating <br />and understood that it was a fiscal decision. <br /> <br />Ms. Stern said that impacts from the development that creates this revenue should also be <br />considered. There are traffic and public safety that need to be provided for; costs as well <br />as benefits need to be considered. It would be a very complicated formula to come up <br />with this region-wide and to come up with agreement on how to break these issues out. <br /> <br />Goal 1 (Location and Intensity of Urban Development) <br /> <br />Page 14-15 <br />Commissioner Blank inquired whether Program 1.4 regarding development outside city <br />limits had been implemented. Ms. Stern replied that it had not, and that is the reason it is <br />still being considered; no agreement has been arrived at to date. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank noted that this goal had been in the document for ten years and that <br />no progress had been made. He inquired whether it should be retained for the future. He <br />believes that we should have realistic goals, policies, and programs. <br /> <br />Ms. Stern stated that the City coordinates outside its jurisdiction. She added that the City <br />has informally implemented this policy, but no agreement has been made. She noted that <br />the General Plan is coming up with an implementation strategy and that staff will set up a <br />matrix for all policies to include who is responsible and what the priority level is. By <br />doing that as part of the General Plan, the City will be able to keep track of the programs. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank inquired whether the wording could be strengthened. He suggested <br />searching the General Plan for every instance of the word “agreement,” document it, and <br />call it out for the City Council to prioritize. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank inquired why Program 1.7 was removed. <br /> <br />Ms. Stern replied that it states that the General Plan land-use designations should be <br />revised based on the inventory of land uses located in the subregion. She noted that this <br />is already being done as part of our land use map and the General Plan update. <br /> <br />Chairperson Fox noted that under the Land Use Element, there had been discussion about <br />having a green belt between cities. She suggested that be included in this document as <br />well. Ms. Stern asked if there is anything under open space. Commissioner Blank noted <br />that goal may not be realistic. <br /> <br />Page 14-16 <br />Commissioner Narum inquired whether Program 1.4 was being implemented and <br />whether it was realistic. Ms. Stern did not believe the program necessarily stated that an <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 2007 Page 9 of 21 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.