My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 10/08/80
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1980
>
PC 10/08/80
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:12:00 PM
Creation date
4/30/2007 9:39:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/8/1980
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 10/08/80
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
Commissioner Wilson asked the reason the applicant is requesting <br />the rezoning. Mr. Harris said because of the types of uses allowed <br />in the C-F District. <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />Anthony Varni, attorney, partner to Mr. Fraser spoke. Mr. Varni <br />stated his client concurs with the staff report and has no parti- <br />cular objections to PUD. He stated he had no further comments but <br />did want to reserve the right to rebut any testimony given. <br />Commissioner Getty asked Mr. Varni if he thought the center could <br />be filled. Mr. Varni stated he didn't know but did want the chance <br />to try. <br />Commissioner Lindsey asked about liquor stores on the property. <br />Mr. Harris stated that the Stoneridge Homeowners talked the developers <br />out of this use. Mr. Varni stated that there have been two meetings <br />between the developer and the City in an attempt to resolve the use <br />problem. <br />Commissioner Wilson asked if members the Stoneridge Homeowners <br />Association were present. It was indicated that they had repre- <br />sentatives at one of the meetings. <br />Bill Christensen, 7979 Hillsboro Court, president of the Stoneridge <br />Homeowners Association spoke. He stated he feels this parcel is best <br />suited for limited retail businesses and to allow any other retail <br />business such as Frank's original proposal would be bad. He stated <br />'bars' would change the nature of the residential area surrounding <br />the property drastically. He further stated that 90~ of the access <br />will have to be from Pleasant Hill Drive, a residential street. <br />He stated there would be traffic through the housing development to <br />get to this retail center and didn't want to see any more traffic <br />generated than there is right now. He stated anyone coming to the <br />center from Stoneridge would have to make a left turn to the <br />property. He referred to an agreement made last year concerning the <br />BART property north of Stoneridge Drive relating to traffic studies <br />and that a 'no left turn sign' would be placed at this intersection <br />limiting access to/from Pleasant Hill Road. He stated they were <br />assured their development would be protected against the BART <br />traffic created at all costs and that retail uses would be kept <br />within the shopping center property. He stated the Stoneridge area <br />is the only one in Pleasanton which does not have a completed park. <br />He stated they want a natural park. Mr. Christensen stated he has <br />sat and listened to developers all over the State and after all is <br />said and done the complexes change hands and problems develop. He <br />stated he would like the property to be zoned "O" Office or have <br />Mr. Franks sit down again with the homeowners of this area to <br />come up with a better list -- a more realistic use of the commercial <br />PUD. <br />-3- <br />_ .... ..... .... .. .... .Y.. .. .... <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.