My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 05/20/81
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1981
>
PC 05/20/81
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:18:36 PM
Creation date
4/30/2007 9:21:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/20/1981
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 05/20/81
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
the intention of the City to extend the entire frontage unless develop- <br />ment takes place to the west. Mr. Johnson said concerning Condition <br />No. 48 he would like the language changed so that "encouraged" would <br />replace "guarantee." His company always encourages this but cnanot <br />guarantee it will be done. Mr. Harris stated that previous proposals <br />addressed 50-100 people and they were "encouraged" to have vanpools <br />but Farmers is talking about 800 people who are each expected to drive <br />their own automobiles and that everything should be done to prevent <br />all 800 employees from driving their individual automobiles. <br />Commissioners Getty and Lindsey stated they agree with this statement. <br />Chairperson Wilson asked how many years it would be before their <br />employees would go from 400 to 800. Mr. Geingrich explained. <br />Mr. Johnson said that concerning Condition No. 52 he reads this as <br />being absolute and his understanding with the Fire Marshal indicated <br />that it may not be necessary to prevent occupancy of the building <br />until the City's elevated stream apparatus is in operation. <br />Chairperson Wilson asked the approximate time of arrival of the fire <br />fighting equipment vs occupancy of the structure. Mr. Harris indicated <br />receipt of the equipment would probably be in about one year with <br />occupancy within two years. <br />Mr. Johnson asked how much money is being addressed in Condition No. 55 <br />concerning the water study. Mr. Warnick explained. <br />Chairperson Wilson asked if Mr. Johnson was satisfied with the ex- <br />planation concerning Condition No. 55. Mr. Johnson said his concern <br />is with the dollar amount involved. <br />Harold Geingrich, Farmers Insurance, stated that the house located <br />across from their property was purchased by Citizens Savings and Loan <br />and they look for development of it within the foreseeable future. He <br />said they intend to start construction in July of this year so that <br />they would be established in the building in two years. He said he <br />has people moving to the area already in anticipation of their new <br />headquarters for Northern California. Mr. Geingrich said they will <br />employ about 85~ local people. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />Chairperson Wilson said that the applicant sat through hearings con- <br />cerning the Meyer development and as a result removed one story from <br />their proposed building and believes that they have submitted an <br />application that they can find no fault with and further he concurs <br />with the applicant concerning Condition No. 37 regarding the existing <br />house. He said Farmers should not be expected to move the road over <br />onto their property if the house has been bought for investment. <br />Mr. Warnick suggested that "or as otherwise approved by the City <br />Engineer" be added to the end of this condition. He said the condition <br />should be considered as a warning to consider the residents of the <br />house in the course of construction. <br />-3- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.