My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 05/25/83
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1983
>
PC 05/25/83
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 10:25:33 AM
Creation date
4/27/2007 4:39:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/25/1983
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 05/25/83
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
PLANNING COMMISSION <br />5/25/83 <br />Page 11 <br />Mr. Gooch indicated he was satisfied with the conditions imposed <br />on the project with the exception of condition 31. The property <br />to be dedicated is 850 ft. away from his project and would therefore <br />have to be dedicated by Mrs. Johnson. Mrs. Johnson has firmly <br />indicated she did not want to do this. <br />There was then discussion regarding the necessity o.f this pump <br />station and why it was located at this snot. Staff indicated <br />the pump station was being built by The Chamberlain Group as <br />a condition of their RAF approval and it was placed at this <br />location according to hydrologic studies to improve water pressure <br />in this area. <br />There was then some discussion regarding the condition requiring <br />an access road to the park. <br />Mr. Gil Barbee, Land Surveyor, of 147 Bernal Avenue, spoke to <br />the Commission regarding; condition 31. In reviewing; the site <br />plan, he felt the. City had plenty of room to nark its vehicles <br />at the station. He also indicated that Mr. Dunkley had been paid <br />for the land necessary for the pump station in his development <br />and Mrs. Johnson also wanted to be paid. <br />Commissioner Doherty asked what logic staff was using to nay <br />Mr. Dunkley for his property and then try to have Mrs. Johnson <br />dedicate her property: Mr. Swift responded it was a matter of <br />timing. That when the Dunkley property was approved, staff <br />imposed many conditions. It was later determined to install a <br />pump station and at that time city could not demand dedication. <br />In this instance, we are dealing with the requirement at the <br />outset and it is not out of line to require the developer to <br />dedicate the property. <br />Commissioner Wilson asked staff if they agreed with TZr. Barbee's <br />claim that there was plenty of room for narking. Mr. Okamura <br />responded that there was not as much room as stated since plans <br />are being prepared for an 8 ft, wide bike lane in that area. <br />Marie Grant, 597 Rowell Lane, indicated she was not opposed to <br />the project and requested that the park access be retained in <br />the plans.. <br />Mr. Carl tilalter indicated he had spoken to a few people and they <br />did not want the easement for access to the nark. He felt the <br />one at Girard Court was adequate. <br />Mr. Peter Foy, also objected to the nark access easement. <br />The public hearing was then closed. <br />r <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.