Laserfiche WebLink
4y$~sA~~°y CITY of PLEASANTON <br />~~ o <br />.*.:o.~ Planning Commission <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />DGte ; August 8, 1972 <br />Time : 8:0o P.M. <br />PIOCe: Pleasanton Justice Court <br />Vice Chairman Pons emphasized to <br />Mr. Fairfield that when sewer capacit <br />is available, the commercial develop- <br />ment would hold priority over the <br />residential. Mr. Fairfield under- <br />stood this and stated that it is <br />significant to their overall packagin <br />that 5toneson receive the RM-2500 <br />district designation. <br />It was Commissioner Pereira's opinion <br />that basically he had no objection to <br />the overall proposal; that a viable <br />alternative for zoning the multiple <br />to PUD Multiple would be acceptable <br />at this time until all problems <br />with the School District could be <br />resolved. He then commented on <br />statements made by Mr. Mariani. He <br />confirmed that Livingston & Blayney <br />did speak about the regional center i <br />their previous General Plan; that the <br />Director of Community Development did <br />voice his comments in his report of <br />July 25, 1972. <br />Commissioner McLain indicated that <br />he had discussed with the Director <br />of Community Development the six- <br />lane requirement for Foothill Road <br />eventually to run from West Las <br />Positas Boulevard, north to #580. He <br />also discussed the question of the <br />overpass and the need for a direct <br />connection of the area west of #680 t <br />the rest of the City of Pleasanton. <br />He spoke of the desirability of Navin <br />a bike path built into the overpass, <br />thus tying in the bike trail too. <br />he Vice Chairman remarked that the <br />verall concern of the Commission <br />ould probably lie in the area of the <br />basing development; he did not want <br />o have all the multiples developed <br />first and the center second. <br />-13- <br />