My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 12/14/83
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1983
>
PC 12/14/83
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 10:21:46 AM
Creation date
4/27/2007 4:05:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
12/14/1983
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 12/14/83
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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 <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />12/14/83 <br />Page 6 <br />CommissionerLindsey asked Mr. Walters why they objected to the access way. Mr. <br />Walters stated they object to the maintenance, litter, graffiti, damaged fences <br />and other related problems with such an access. He said children ride mopheads <br />and other vehicles into parks on such accesses. He wished to have privacy of the <br />area maintained. He also stated that there is alreayd access to Kottinger Park <br />through Gerard Court. <br />Rich Green, 575 Rowell Lane, spoke to the petitions presented previously. He <br />said several years ago they tried to hold various meetings with people in the neighborhood <br />and you couldn't get anybody other than the residents of Rowell Lane to address <br />anything. Rowell Lane residents worked with the Planning Commission and staff. <br />He stated that people in the area are not active and he was not impressed with <br />the signature of 44 people on the petition. He was against having the access way <br />to Kottinger park. <br />Peter Foy, 531 Rowell Lane, wanted the access eliminated. He felt it would attribute <br />to accidents and would be hazardous. He said the park is eroding and there is no <br />need for this access. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />Commissioner Getty stated that originally she wanted the access and at that time <br />thought it was extremely important for emergency vehiclular access, but the park <br />has eroded and she believes there is a safety factor concerning this access. She <br />was supportive of removing the accessway. <br />Commissioner Doherty stated that access is very important and stated it effects <br />the community not just the immediate residents. <br />Commissioner Lindseysaid that Ewing, Gerard and Mavis already have access to <br />the park and it wouldn't be to any benefit of the residents on those streets. He <br />would support eliminating the access if the Police and Fire Departments had no <br />objections. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Getty, seconded by Commissioner Wilson <br />that case PUD-80-13-1M be approved as recommended by staff. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners <br /> Jamieson <br />NOES: Commissioner <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />Getty, Lindsey, Wilson and Chairman <br />Wilson <br />Resolution No. 2408 was entered and adopted approving case PUD-80-13-1M as <br />motioned. <br />-6- <br />.... T. »._ .. ... ,_ __.,.. _ _ _ - it <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.