My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 10/13/82
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1982
>
PC 10/13/82
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:25:57 PM
Creation date
4/30/2007 1:51:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/13/1982
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 10/13/82
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
Commissioner Wilson then asked about the petitions presented to <br />Council. Mr. Schneider said there was a petition of 36 names <br />against the project submitted to City Council previously. He said <br />there were only 36 names on it because of the limited time they <br />had in which to get signatures. <br />Sue Glanville, 3069 Chardonnay, spoke to concerns with increased <br />density of the area and traffic problems which relate to it. She <br />said the location is not good for transportation of seniors and others. <br />She said there is no place for children to play. She said as far <br />as the Vintage Hills Homeowners Association is concerned she has no <br />idea how many people are members of this association. She said <br />she is also concerned with real estate devaluation of surrounding <br />homes should this development go through. <br />Carol Hall again spoke stating there are planty of places with more <br />and better access than this location. Commissioner Doherty indicated. <br />that a project is being built right behind the Safeway store on <br />Santa Rita Road. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />Commissioner Wilson asked what the State law is concerning this type <br />of development. Mr. Swift responded that one cannot discriminate <br />against manufactured housing. He said this project must be looked <br />at based upon its merits, ie. lot layout, streets, easements, water <br />lines, etc. but not judged on its basis of manufactured housing. <br />Commissioner Wilson then asked about No. 15 of the negative declara- <br />tion relating to public controversy and the fact that it is checked <br />"No". Mr. Harris said the negative declaration was prepared prior <br />to this meeting and at that time as far as the staff knew, there <br />was no great amount of public controversy. Commissioner Wilson <br />indicated that sometimes petitions are somewhat vague in saying <br />what the citizens are opposed to. Commissioner Doherty agreed with <br />this statement. <br />Commissioner Doherty stated he has been in favor of this project <br />all along. He said that the project may be a little dense but that <br />this could be taken care of in the final decision. <br />Commissioner Getty stated that basically she goes along with <br />Commissioner Doherty's statements. <br />Commissioner Wilson said these homes will be on a concrete foundation <br />but not what one would think of as concrete foundations. He spoke <br />to concerns with redwood planking and that in 10 years it will be <br />deteriorated. He said for these reasons he feels the homeowners <br />association should be responsible for them. He said in all fairness <br />the applicant has addressed previous concerns by the City but he <br />feels that the project is too dense. He .said that perhaps the <br />recreation area should be increased in size since there are no parks <br />in the area. He asked if units 71 through 142 were duplexes. Mr. <br />Earp, the developer, responded that they are duplexes. Commissioner <br />-19- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.