My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 09/10/80
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1980
>
PC 09/10/80
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:11:52 PM
Creation date
4/30/2007 9:41:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/10/1980
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 09/10/80
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
Mr. Warnick stated that condition 2 of the planning report relates <br />to condition 1 of the engineering report and recommended this be <br />granted as a separate parcel and that it was his understanding that <br />because of the size it couldn't be given credit for reducing park fees. <br />Mr. Bartelson stated that nothing in the ordinance speaks to a size <br />parcel regarding this dedication and that while this is a small matter, <br />overall it is a large matter because of the size of the project and <br />that if the City doesn't want it dedicated, they will give a public <br />service easement. <br />Mr. Warnick stated a P.S.E. couldn't be used as a trail system. He <br />stated if it is to be used for a trail it should be dedicated, if not <br />it could be used to take care of sewer needs. <br />Mr. Harris stated the General Plan shows that parcel would correspond <br />with a buffer shown on the map. <br />Mr. Bartelson stated that if the City doesn't want it, he would want <br />to take it off the plan. <br />Mr. Harris stated the City should have the ability in the future to <br />use it for trail or public service purposes whether it is done through <br />park dedication or easement but that the City shouldn't throw the <br />chance away. <br />Mr. •Warnick stated the developer should grant this parcel in fee title <br />so the City could use it for sewer or park and then reduce the park dedi- <br />cation fees. <br />Mr. Bartelson stated this is a small amount at this time, but that <br />the developer has a lot of prap~yrty left and it could amount to quite <br />a bit. <br />The public hearing was clsoed. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner <br />Lindsey that this project could have a significant effect on the environ- <br />ment relating to noise but that by adding a condition "that the <br />developer construct a functional noise barrier along Santa Rita Road <br />and the SPRR tracks, the design to be approved by the City prior to <br />recordation of a final map," the impact would be reduced to an insigni- <br />ficant level, and the mitigated negative declaration prepared for <br />case Tract 4671 be adopted. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />Ayes: Commissioners Doherty, Lindsey and Acting Chairperson Getty <br />Noes: None <br />Absent: Commissioner Jamieson <br />Abstain: Chairperson Wilson (stepped down -- financial interest) <br />Resolution No. 1908 was then entered and adopted approving the mitigated <br />negative declaration prepared for Tract 4671. <br />-16- <br />~__... _. _ ... ... _._....._....r_.., _ ~ .. _ _~._ ._ _•,, ._ _ _ _ . _ r._ _ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.