My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 032807
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
PC 032807
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 3:29:25 PM
Creation date
8/17/2007 10:13:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/28/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
Steve Bocian presented the staff report and detailed the contents of the City CIP. He <br />asked the Commissioners to identify their project priorities and any projects included on <br />Attachment A that they did not consider to be a priority project. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson noted that he would not comment on projects that were already in <br />process and did not believe that an in-progress project should be stopped once funds have <br />already been expended. Mr. Bocian noted that some in-progress projects may not have <br />been put out to bid yet and that it was appropriate to examine the priority of that project. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank would like to know how much money has been invested in the <br />in-progress projects. He believed that would make it easier to make a good decision <br />when approximate metrics can be identified with respect to the amount of money <br />invested. <br /> <br />An extended discussion on the prioritizing method ensued. <br /> <br />Commissioner Narum noted that her project priorities were Items B, D, F, and G. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson believed the Commission would mix things up a bit if it took <br />priorities established by the City Council and try to undo them or, by virtue of their input, <br />reduce the existing projects’ importance. He did not believe they should be on the list for <br />consideration. He noted that there was a lot of planning in the City and believed that <br />there should be more implementation. He noted that his project priorities were Items B, <br />G, P, and E. He believed that the Permanent ACE Train location was extremely <br />important to the City with respect to mixed-use development and transit-oriented <br />development. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank noted that his priorities were Items D, F, G, and P. He agreed with <br />Commissioner Olson regarding the importance of Item P. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce noted that her priorities were Items G, H, L, and M. She believed <br />that the arts center was essential and added that Gingerbread Preschool had been planning <br />its outdoors facilities for a long time. She cited the importance of good preschool <br />education as well as physical activity on the Iron Horse Trail. She noted that the library <br />was so cramped that for every new book it wished to acquire, it had to get rid of an older, <br />existing book. <br /> <br />Commissioner O’Connor noted that his priorities were Items B, D, G, and P. <br /> <br />Chairperson Fox noted that her priorities were Items H, L, X, and E. She believed that <br />Gingerbread Preschool should add parking improvements as well because of the post <br />office across the street. Mr. Bocian noted that staff was not requesting additions to the <br />projects. Chairperson Fox requested that Mr. Bocian mention her request to the City <br />Council. Commissioner Pearce concurred with that request. Chairperson Fox would like <br />to add an easement by the Iron Horse Trail to get people off the sidewalks. She believed <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 28, 2007 Page 11 of 16 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.