Laserfiche WebLink
CITY of PLEASANTON <br />a+ Planning Commission <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />DG18 : April 14, 1976 <br />Tune : 8:53 P.M. <br />PIGCe; Pleasanton Council Chambers <br />Mr. Karn indicated no prior knowledge <br />of staff recommendation to place 162 <br />acres in the I-P instead of the I-L <br />,District. In summary, his clients <br />'wished to have the 162 acres as I-L, <br />the Office zone as shown and the C-F <br />zone without the PUD designation <br />attached to it. He also gave some <br />',brief description of the types of <br />',.uses they propose for the C-F Dis- <br />'~ trict . <br />Next Mr. Don Savery, resident of <br />Val Vista spoke. He cited discre- <br />pancies within the environmental <br />impact report and concluded his com- <br />ments by indicating that until such <br />questions as traffic, noise, circu- <br />lation, flood etc., could be satis- <br />factorily addressed, no rezoning <br />should take place on this property. <br />Next Bob Pearson, 3590 Churchill <br />Court, Pleasanton Meadows subdivi- <br />sion spoke. He voiced further con- <br />cerns regarding circulation, but <br />addressed the bulk of his .comments <br />to the serious sewer situation the <br />City faces. Because of the lawsuits <br />which have been. brought against the <br />City, he felt no commitments should <br />be given to developers without <br />viable solutions to the sewer crisis <br />He felt the developer should sign <br />an agreement never to sue the City <br />on sewer allocations if this case <br />is approved. <br />Deputy City Attorney, in response to <br />Mr. Pearson's question, stated that <br />he would not advise entering into <br />such an agreement because of its <br />questionable legality. Judges <br />generally don't appreciate one party <br />cutting off another party's right <br />to redress a grievance through the <br />-3- <br />