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 />Commissioner Innes said there is no doubt in his mind that when a <br />development proposal comes in for consideration, assessment <br />districts imposed on this property will be considered. <br />Commissioner Michelotti also had concerns with the steepness of <br />the slopes and their impacts. <br />Vote: CFA (Rural) 5-0 <br />2E - Currin <br />Commissioner Innes asked who came up with the proposal to move <br />the sewer lines south toward Sunol. Mr. Lee said this came from <br />a master sewer plan coming from a study done in the 1960's. <br />Commissioner Innes asked what effect the proposal to the County <br />has on Rural Density Residential on the General Plan. Mr. Lee <br />indicated that the County refers developments in the planning <br />boundaries to the City of Pleasanton. The City makes comments <br />based upon the General Plan. <br />Vote: CFA (Rural) 5-0 <br />2F - Panganiban <br />Commissioner Michelotti would like to see it as proposed <br />currently, holding the green area at 670' with the understanding <br />that at the time a development plan comes in other ramifications <br />can be considered. <br />Vote: LDR (6.5 acres), RDR (13 acres), and PH&S (43.5 acres), <br />5-0 <br />2 - In General <br />David Glenn, 5650 Foothill Road, represented he and his wife. <br />His concerns were specifically related to Tehan Canyon. <br />Development of the area, in his opinion, was dangerous because of <br />the potential geologic impacts settling clays, erosion, <br />earthquakes). He reviewed the landslides in the area over the <br />recent past and presented a book which showed graphically the <br />results should liquefaction happen as a result of earthquakes. <br />Mr. Glenn made reference to the fact that the property is between <br />the Calaveras and Hayward Faults. Mr. Glenn was also opposed to <br />annexation of the area because of the above. <br />2G - EBRPD <br />Paul Giardina, EBRPD, stated they prefer to have their property <br />changed from Public Health and Safety and Open Space to Parks and <br />Recreation. Mr. Lee stated that at the 8/27/86 meeting the text <br />was reviewed and the 1152 acre site changed from Public Health <br />and Safety to Parks and Recreation at the request of EBRPD. The <br />property is that shown in pencil on the Community Facilities Map <br />in dark green. <br />- 8 - <br />- ,_ _ _-__ ., r_,_ .._ _ --,~_ . _ __ .. .__ _ _ .. _.._ .. _ T _ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.