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
<br />Wilson asked if the units set aside for persons over 50 were the <br />duplexes. It was confirmed that they are. Commissioner Wilson <br />said he saw no reason to set aside specific areas for persons over <br />50. Mr. Earp also stated that the foundations will be concrete and <br />not as suggested by Commissioner Wilson. <br />Vice Chairperson Jamieson stated this project has a token recreation <br />area, too many units, there are too many traffic concerns and, <br />in his opinion, is not an affordable housing project and if the City <br />Council approves this it is going to be one of the greatest mistakes <br />it has ever made, as this area will be a waste land in ten years. <br />Commissioner Wilson said he believes the definition of "affordable" <br />is 120 of the median family income in the area which would make <br />the project qualify. He said the problem with affordable housing is <br />that there is no correlation between the square footage and the cost. <br />Vice Chairperson Jamieson indicated one could go to Livermore and <br />purchase housing at a cheaper square footage price. <br />Commissioner Wilson said that a full EIR, in his opinion, would be <br />a total waste of time and money because problems can be resolved <br />better through conditions. <br />Commissioner Doherty addressed the plans submitted to the Commission. <br />He said the sheets do not agree and asked which of the sheets is the <br />correct plan. The proponents presented the corrected sheets. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Getty, seconded by Commissioner <br />Doherty, that the negative declaration prepared for case PUD-82-21 <br />be recommended for adoption because approval of this case would not <br />have any negative significant effect on the environment. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />Ayes: Commissioners Doherty, Getty and Wilson <br />Noes: Vice Chairperson Jamieson <br />Absent: Chairperson Lindsey <br />Abstain: None <br />Resolution No. 2229 was then entered and adopted recommending <br />approval of the negative declaration prepared for case PUD-82-21. <br />Commissioner Doherty spoke to the project itself stating he has <br />felt all along that perhaps the project is a little dense and that <br />there might be more recreational facilities offered to the residents. <br />He said there is a recreation area at the northwest corner of the area <br />but not as large as he would like to see it. He would like to see <br />units 29-34 or what amounts to six duplex units given up and added <br />to the recreation area. <br />-20- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.