My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 03/12/80
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1980
>
PC 03/12/80
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:10:13 PM
Creation date
4/30/2007 9:59:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/12/1980
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 03/12/80
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
the study to determine the need for signalization and that Centex will <br />pay their fair share for the signal if a need is determined. Commis- <br />sioner Wilson then addressed the other signal on Mission Drive and <br />whether or not Centex would be contributing to the cost of that signal. <br />Mr. Harris stated they would not contribute to that signal. Commissioner <br />Wilson then asked why Mission Park would have to contribute to the cost <br />of the signal when they are already putting in one. Mr. Harris explained. <br />Commissioner Getty inquired as to the status of the Mission Hill proposal. <br />Mr. Harris stated that the City has not yet received their application <br />for tentative map approval. <br />Commissioner Wilson stated that about six months ago he and the Director <br />of Planning and Community Development walked that hill and spoke to <br />alignment concerns and the effect on future extension of the street and <br />that if it was put in the wrong place, it could cost a lot of money to <br />correct in the future. <br />Mr. Schaumburg stated that Mr. Campbell had made arrangements so that <br />Centex and the City would be working together for the street alignment. <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />Bob Douglass, M & M Consultants, engineers for this project spoke. He <br />stated they are working with the citizens in the proposed area, and <br />MacKay an/ Somps regarding Pico. He addressed the view easement. He <br />stated the next step would be to come before the City with the precise <br />locations of the homes. <br />Commissioner Jamieson inquired about the view arrangement. <br />Mr. Douglass stated there is at least one lot that will be a problem <br />and that they are looking into lowering pads or perhaps lowering the <br />roof line and that Centex has done this sort of thing in the past and <br />intends to take care of the problem. Mr. Harris stated the City will <br />monitor the development so that the view easement is not lost. Mr. <br />Douglass said his people will also monitor this easement. <br />Charlotte Severin, 4513 Mirador, spoke representing the Pleasanton <br />Heights Homeowners. She stated their concern is with the view easement. <br />She stated two lots are in question which block Mr. Abrott's view and <br />Mr. Abrott would address that. She asked that if the tentative map is <br />approved tonight what assurance do the homeowners have that the easement <br />will be enforced inasmuch as a public hearing is not held on a final map <br />application. Mrs. Severin read from the approved PUD Ordinance on this <br />matter and addressed the design of open space. <br />-7- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.