My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 05/11/83
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1983
>
PC 05/11/83
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 10:25:44 AM
Creation date
4/27/2007 4:41:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/11/1983
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.
/
22
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
PLATINING COMMISSION <br />Page 4 <br />Mr. Guy Houston, 1971 Ascot Drive, Moraga, who is the son of <br />Fred Houston, indicated he is now attending school in 'Moraga <br />but would like to be able to buy a home in Pleasanton and <br />encouraged the Commission's approval of this project so <br />there would be some affordable housing available. <br />Mr. Jan Waggoner, 4282 Cross Court, Pleasanton, addressed the <br />Commission as a senior citizen who is in favor of the project. <br />He presently owns his own home but foresees a time when he <br />may not be able to take care of his yard and would like to <br />move to a project like this, where the landscaping is maintained. <br />Mr. Ed Rouquette, 3436 Windsor Court, then addressed the <br />Commission in opposition to the project. He presented a <br />written statement from the Pleasanton Meadows Cabana Club. <br />The primary concerns are traffic problems and the high <br />density of the development. <br />Mr. M. L. Carter, 3127 Weymouth Court, spoke in support of <br />the comments of Mr. Rouquette. <br />Mr. Kierstead was then given an opportunity to rebut the <br />comments in opposition to the project. He simply indicated <br />West Las Positas could handle considerably more traffic that <br />it was presently and that this project as designed had <br />smaller footprints of the buildings, more open space, more <br />narking and requested the Commission to approve it. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />Commissioner Arrigoni asked to see the site plan for the <br />Valley Avenue apartments to compare the density and traffic <br />flow of that project to the 'Meadow Plaza prof ect . <br />Commissioner Lindsey indicated this plan makes sense for <br />this property. Commissioner Getty agreed; and agreed with <br />Commissioner Arrigoni's suggestion to set the buildings back <br />further from Santa Rita Road. This would help motorists to <br />see better when entering Santa Rita. She also felt traffic <br />generated by this project would be insignificant compared to <br />any commercial project for the same site. Commissioner <br />Getty additionally indicated she liked the design of the <br />buildings. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Jamieson, seconded by <br />Commissioner Getty, that the mitigated negative declaration <br />prepared for the application for case PUD-83-3 be recommended <br />for approval inasmuch as conditions imposed in the project <br />approval would reduce any significant impacts to an insignificant <br />level. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.