My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 07/12/78
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1970-1979
>
1978
>
PC 07/12/78
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/3/2017 9:18:34 AM
Creation date
4/30/2007 11:19:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/12/1978
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 07/12/78
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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. Ronald Pozzebon, resident on Longspur Way, indicated that while the <br />plan presented is ac~eptabJe to these residents present at the hearing, <br />because of vacation plans, etc., several other interested persons had not <br />had the opportunity to look at the revised plans. Their main area of <br />concern centered on the P & I zoned land. They worried that they would <br />not have sufficient guarantees that development on that site would not <br />infringe on their properties in some way. <br />Condition No. 2 of the staff report for the conditional use permit addressed <br />safeguard procedures for the P & I land, and considerable discussion took <br />place as to its relevancy and whether those conditions can be enforceable. <br />Commissioner Wilson expressed concerns that those requirements may not be <br />enforceable. <br />Traffic circulation was another area of concern stated by Mr. Pozzebon, and <br />again, discussion ensued on this point. <br />Jack Berkeley, 2356 Via Espada, asked for clarification of the traffic <br />flow which would result from this development. <br />Mr. Bill Hirst, commented that he felt Condition No. 2 of the conditional <br />use permit report was enforceable and does provide assurances at the time <br />of development of the P & I site. He did state he did not feel it would be <br />equitable for the developer to provide landscaping along the easterly <br />boundary of the site immediately. <br />Next, Renardo D4artinez, traffic engineer hired by Tam Investment Company to <br />conduct a study of the area spoke. He presented statistical findings to <br />substantiate his position that no traffic breakdowns should occur, even <br />during peak traffic hours, with the development of this center. <br />Resolution 1653 was entered and adopted making the finding that the project <br />would not have an adverse impact on the environment and that a Negative <br />Declaration would be filed. <br />Roll Call Vote <br />Resolution: Doherty <br />Seconded: Wilson <br />Ayes: Doherty, Leppert, <br />Noes: None <br />Absent: None <br />Abstain: None <br />Getty, Wilson, Jamieson <br />Resolution 1654 was entered and adopted approving design plans filed for <br />under Z-78-62, subject to the conditions in the July 12, 1978, staff report <br />plus Conditions 3 through 28 of the staff report dated May 25, 1978. <br />Roll Call Vote <br />Resolution: Wilson <br />Seconded: Doherty <br />Ayes: Doherty, Geppert, <br />Noes: None <br />Absent: None <br />Abstain: None <br />Getty, Wilson, Jamieson <br />-4- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.