My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 04/08/81
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1981
>
PC 04/08/81
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/9/2013 3:47:14 PM
Creation date
4/30/2007 9:26:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/8/1981
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 04/08/81
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
Chairperson Wilson pointed out that if the water department property is <br />not included, both roads will be necessary. <br />Mr. Fairfield said that if this is the understanding, they have no problem <br />with this proposed finding. <br />Commissioner Jamieson said that concerning Condition No. 59 he feels <br />50 is not a good figure and that perhaps 200-300 would be fair. Com- <br />missioner Getty said she agrees 100 would probably be fine. Com-:tissioner <br />Doherty said that perhaps before we insist on van-pooling, homework <br />should be done and that he isn't sure any number should be attached. <br />Commissioner Getty stated she is inclined to go along with that. <br />Chairperson Wilson asked if any dollar amount had been put in Condition <br />No. 56. Mr. Harris said the figure has not yet been determined. In a <br />discussion with Harvey Levine, Mr. Loube has suggested that a formula <br />for payment be allocated based upon the benefit to the project. Ted <br />Fairfield said they are not proposing 8 or 14 story buildings and are <br />not volunteering to pay for fire equipment that will be serving 14 story <br />buildings. <br />Mr. Harris stated that this seems reasonable to the staff. <br />Commissioner Jamieson asked if it is possible for the City to condemn <br />the San Francisco Water Department property. Mr. Harris said it is <br />hopeful that the San Francisco Water people will negotiate with the <br />developer. Commissioner Doherty said a letter has been received from <br />the San Francisco Water Department in which they indicate they would <br />vigorously oppose condemnation. <br />Assistant City Attorney, Brian Swift, said this matter has been re- <br />searched and the City could condemn the property. <br />Robert Lovell, San Francisco Water Department, incidated they don't <br />want to be obstructionists, but that they will oppose condemnation. <br />He said they will do whatever necessary to preserve the integrity of <br />their facilities. <br />Commissioner Jamieson inquired as to the type of installation of the <br />San Francisco Water Company and Mr. Lovell explained. <br />Tandy Carter, San Francisco Water Department, Sunol, spoke to the <br />operations aspect of the wells stating that they service four wells <br />three times per week at about one and one-half hours each time. He <br />said the proposal would put a well in the median strip of Valley <br />Avenue and that the EIR is deficient. <br />Chairperson Wilson said that this project will provide a cross town <br />street for which the City has been waiting. <br />Mr. Carter said they have concerns with the northeast strip of the <br />property. <br />-3- <br />.. _ _ . _ .._ _._ . _ .. _ . ,. ___ _ . ~__._ _~ _... __ _ _ .. _. _._ _ .. ___ .T._ ._ . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.