My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 09/03/86
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1986
>
PC 09/03/86
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 11:04:39 AM
Creation date
4/23/2007 4:29:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/3/1986
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 09/3/86
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
Minutes of the Continued Planning Commission Meeting of 8/27/86 <br />Held on 9/3/86 <br />Mr. Lund, Mr. Lee and the Planning Commission then discussed the <br />CFA. Mr. Lee indicated it would allow 135 units. Mr. Lund then <br />stated this designation is not acceptable to him because of the <br />amount of open space involved. <br />Vote: CFA <br />23C - Foley <br />Mr. Lee presented staff's recommendation. <br />Vote: CFA - 5-0 <br />23E - Spotorno <br />Al Spotorno, P. O. Box 487, Pleasanton, spoke for the Spotorno <br />family. They have 40-50 acres which they believe is suitable for <br />Low Density Residential. They do not want any of it to be PH&S. <br />The site is located next to a church, and has 1,000 feet frontage <br />on a County Road. Mr. Spotorno said he had no concern with the <br />property marked 23E, but did care about 23, Southeast Hills and <br />23E. He did not feel that this parcel should be put into PH&S. <br />He asked that the line be moved east. Mr. Lee stated that this <br />is not a parcel recommended for a change. Mr. Spotorno stated <br />that mark was marked incorrectly. Mr. Spotorno pointed out that <br />PH&S on the Foley property which was in the County is one unit <br />per five acres. Mr. Lee said that PH&S in the City would not <br />give anyone one unit per five acres. <br />Chairman Lindsey asked if staff could discuss with Mr. Spotorno a <br />better plan. Mr. Lee said they could. <br />Vote: CFA - 5-0 <br />Parcel 24 - Stoneridcte Drive Extension Corridor <br />Mr. Lee presented the staff report. <br />Ilene Weinreb, Bay Area Council, urged High Density Residential <br />in this area. She addressed also the Rose Avenue property and <br />infill projects recommending High Density Residential for all. <br />Ted Fairfield, Consulting Civil Engineer, represented Rhodes and <br />Jamieson, owners of E1 Charro Road. The land planning is okay <br />but regarding traffic, there has been no solution as yet with <br />regard to as to how truck/auto traffic will be handled. <br />Livermore hasn't resolved it either. El Charro Road is the <br />life-line of the quarry operation of Rhodes and Jamieson. <br />Mr. Lee said this will be a major component of the specific plan <br />for the area. <br />Harvey Levine, 4637 Chabot Drive, represented the Chu's. They <br />support a specific plan. <br />Vote: Specific Plan 5-0 <br />- 15 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.