Laserfiche WebLink
4ygA8ANr~y CITY of PLEASANTON <br />~~ Planning Commission <br />I MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />DGte : January 8, 1975 <br />Time ; 8:20 P.M. <br />PIGCe; Pleasanton Justice Court <br />Mr. Hirst stated for the record that <br />his client is aware of the required <br />widening and improvement of Vineyard <br />Avenue and is willing to assume that <br />responsibility and commits himself <br />to discharge that commitment as <br />required in the conditions. <br />Mr. Ralph Martin, 2751 Crellin Road <br />spoke against this application. <br />His property is approximately 2000 <br />feet southwest of the site under <br />discussion. He cited problems of <br />congestion on Vineyard, litter fall- <br />ing on the streets. He further <br />stated that residents from outlying <br />areas, such as Dublin, would utilize <br />the site, but the gas taxes would <br />not accrue to Pleasanton. And, as <br />the population increases, the traffi <br />situation will worsen. Next, re- <br />garding zoning aspects, Mr. Martin <br />stated that Pleasanton Garbage has <br />applied twice to Alameda County and <br />withdrawn, the first time because <br />of apparent negative reaction and <br />the second time due to EIR report <br />requirements. <br />Mr. Ken Mather, 654 Vineyard Avenue <br />read a letter he had written to <br />Alameda County opposing this appli- <br />cation. He explained the sequences <br />of events he went through for the <br />last several years in his attempts <br />to keep this use from going in, <br />ending his remarks by stating he <br />opposed the application because of <br />inadequate roadway for traffic, and <br />that this use would constitute spot <br />zoning. Regarding the comments of <br />the applicant's rep resentative of <br />his awareness and willingness to <br />fulfill his obligation to widen <br />Vineyard Avenue, Mr. Mather wished <br />to know how the balance of the <br />-3- <br />