My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 07/28/82
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1982
>
PC 07/28/82
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:26:49 PM
Creation date
4/30/2007 2:10:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/28/1982
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 07/28/82
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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 />At this point Mr. Sawicki asked Mr. Harris if he felt the proposed <br />buildings conform to his staff report of June 2. Mr. Harris said <br />that it was stated that there is one site that the staff had recom- <br />mended not be in the initial development. <br />Mr. Sawicki referred to condition of approval No. 107 of Hacienda <br />and asked why this had not been done. Mr. Harris stated it was <br />not felt it was necessary at the initial development of the seven <br />projects under consideration. <br />Frank Capilla, 2220 Camino Brazos, Pleasanton, stated that in regard <br />to floor height which was a concern of the Commission, he would like <br />to urge the Commission not to try to make the distance between <br />floors less than 12 feet. He stated that he is in the construction <br />business and is presently working on a five story building where <br />there is less than 12 feet of space and that when you shrink a <br />building it might be cheaper but you don't have a quality building. <br />In the case of the building being considered, he urged the Commission <br />not to lower the requirement. <br />Roger Gage, Prudential Insurance Company, wanted to let the Commission <br />know what the additional height was not intentional on their part <br />to try to increase their limitations and he expressed his hope <br />that everyone understood that. <br />Mr. Harris stated that perhaps staff did not understand that the <br />Commission's concern was a strict 65 feet. He further stated that <br />his thought was that they were concerned about five stories as <br />opposed to taller buildings. He also stated that he felt the <br />Commission did recommend Condition No. 15 as it was written in the <br />ordinance. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />Commissioner Wilson spoke in regard to the environment and voiced <br />his opposition to people from Livermore, particularly those working <br />at the Lab, telling us we should not have this development, especially <br />in view of the type of work which goes on at the Lab. Commissioner <br />Wilson addressed the issue of development in Livermore and cited <br />numerous projects which are now under development or are being <br />considered. Commissioner Wilson spoke of the environmentalists <br />and their affect on other residents in the Valley. He stated he <br />felt these people are causing serious problems and that their <br />actions are adding costs to housing, as well as other projects. <br />He stated he felt they were doing nothing to improve the environment <br />and have only harmed it. Commissioner Wilson expressed his view <br />that he can find no credibility in their findings and wished <br />they would not come to Pleasanton. <br />Commissioner Jamieson stated that he wished to speak in defense <br />of the Rad Lab. He stated he felt it was a great deterrent to war. <br />He also stated he felt the majority of people in Livermore were <br />not radicals. <br />-11- <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.