Laserfiche WebLink
AREA "'~E 415 84&-3202 -:- 200 BERNAL AVENU <br />P. O. BOX 520 -:- pLEASANTON. CALIFORNIA <br /> <br />May 2, 1977 <br /> <br />Alameda County Board of Supervisors <br />c/o Mr. Jack Pool, Clerk of <br />Board of Supervisors <br />1221 Oak Street <br />Oakland, California 94612 <br /> <br />ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 77-47 <br />APPROVING, IN PRINCIPLE, A PLANNED DEVELOP~.~NT FOR PD-39 <br />(95 single-family residential units on Pleasanton Ridge) <br /> <br />On April 25, 1977, the Alameda County Planning Commission approved <br />Resolution No. 77-47, approvin~ in principle, a Planned Development <br />for PD-39 (95 single-family residential units on Pleasanton Ridge). <br />The City Council of the City of Pleasanton desires to appeal said <br />approval for the reasons set forth herein. <br /> <br />The City Council adopted its present general plan in February, 1976, <br />and included within the planning boundaries the property in question. <br />The Pleasanton Ridge area is designated as "Open Space for Public <br />Health and Safety" on said general plan. The City Council has <br />stated in its general plan and in testimony regarding the proposed <br />county general plan for the Livermore-Amador Valley that no urban- <br />ization should occur outside of presently incorporated coXunities. <br /> <br />The City Council is also concerned with the proposed develppment <br />for a number of other reasons: (1) use of a private sewage disposal <br />system; (2) growth inducing impacts above thestate's E/O growth <br />rate; (3) safety of access to the ridgelands, especially for public <br />safety vehicles; (4) the cost to the public of providing minimal <br />governmental services to the area. <br /> <br />In addition, the City Council concurs with the comments regarding <br />this project as set forth in the county staff analysis report of <br />April 18, 1977: <br /> <br />Development as proposed and at this time will be inconsis- <br />tent with policies of the County General Plan, Local Agency <br />Formation Commission, State Water Resources Control Board <br />and California Regional Water Quality Control Board. <br /> <br />The project poses major problems (liabilities to the County, <br />inefficient and higher costs of Services) associated with <br />provision of services to outlying unurbanized portions of <br />the County and development without conventional public <br />services. <br /> <br /> <br />