My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 07/26/79
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1970-1979
>
1979
>
PC 07/26/79
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/3/2017 9:25:24 AM
Creation date
4/30/2007 10:25:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/26/1979
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 07/26/79
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 26, 1979 (continued) <br />in the staff report. <br />Chairman Doherty declared the public hearing opened on the application and negative <br />declaration. <br />Mr. Ted Fairfield, Civil Engineer, representing Ernest Pestana, stated concurred with <br />the staff report. Mr. Fairfield presented a location map and explained the character <br />of the project. He stated the City Council had acted favorably to annexation and <br />that the project is in conformance with the General Plan then made a number of <br />statements about the possible development of the property . <br />Larry Bartelson, 675 Hamilton Way, speaking as a resident stated that Pleasanton <br />needed good first-class housing and that this project would enhance the neighborhood <br />as well as the total community and he urged the Planning Commission to favorably <br />consider this application. <br />Mr. Bernie Roth, 720 Mockingbird Lane, stated his property was adjacent to the Amber <br />Road proposal and that he had built his home there nine years ago with the assurance <br />that the area would remain rural. Mr. Roth stated he had no objection to developing <br />property but he objected to a change in the character of the neighborhood from rural <br />to general urban. He listed other concerns he had pertaining to drainage, width of <br />streets and motorcycle use of the area. There was also some discussion regarding <br />the annexation procedure. <br />Mr. Carl Schrusdorf, 6419 Arlington Drive, representing the homeowners in Rose Pointe, <br />presented a petition to the Planning Commission signed by 50 residents in the area <br />opposing the application. Mr. Schrusdorf elaborated on the points contained in the <br />petition stating the development as proposed will make the neighborhood a feeder <br />road and thoroughfare, increase traffic and safety problems, ruin the play area <br />for the children, lose the quiet atmosphere and gain pollution. Mr. Schrusdorf <br />reiterated the homeowners position that they opposed the proposed development. However, <br />if the application is approved he requested two conditions be considered as follows; <br />one, a separate access road from Sunol Blvd. to the new development; two, a small <br />green belt be situated between the site and the end of Arlington to provide a buffer <br />between the two areas and put each area on its own. <br />Mr. Rennie C. Couper, 6525 Alisal, representing Alisal Homeowners Club stated this <br />group opposes the proposed application for many of the same reasons as the residents <br />of Rose Pointe. <br />Mr. Pat Gill, resident of Rose Pointe, stated he concurred with the concerns as stated <br />in the petition, however, he did not sign it. Mr. Gill asked about the status of <br />annexation proceedings. Mr. Harris advised that the application is being prepared at <br />this time but did not believe it had been sent to LAFCO yet. Mr, Gill asked how this <br />development would be sewered. Mr. Harris advised that the property will be sewered from <br />the Sunol Treatment Plan and that capacity is available. <br />Mr. Don Jackson, 6140 Amber Lane, asked what assurance the residents of this area <br />could have that no traffic from this tract will be on Amber Lane. Staff stated that <br />none could be given. Mr. Jackson asked of a public agency had the right to use a <br />private road. Discussion followed as to whether Amber Lane was public or private. <br />Mr. Jackson stated he would not allow for increased public traffic on his private road <br />and that he would use legal means if necessary. Mr. Jackson also expressed concern <br />about the Calaveras fault patterns in this area and felt this issue should be taken <br />into consideration. <br />-4- <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.