Laserfiche WebLink
4y~ASAN~°y CITY of PLEASANTON <br />~ '~i . <br />.~ <br />`~~~° Planning Commission <br />+wr.o s <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />D Ct8 : August 24, 1971 <br />Time : s : to PM <br />P~aCB; Pleasanton Justice Court <br /> William Gale, 62 W. Neal Street, reported he <br /> represented the owners of this property when <br /> it was sold to Mackay. It was hoped that th <br /> property would have been sold as a single <br /> unit, but it was not economically possible <br /> for any developer to buy such a large parcel <br /> under the I.R.S. The applicant would have <br /> liked to rezone the entire property, but <br /> because of tax reasons, it was impossible. <br /> He further stated that by retaining ownershi , <br /> that gave the owner some control. The <br /> development has been consistent with the <br /> owner's wishes. The development of this <br /> property to date has been done in such a <br /> manner it would enhance development of the <br /> remaining property. There is nothing new <br /> about this and it could have been filed at <br /> any time. We believe that it is necessary <br /> to rezone it now so that the developer knows <br /> what he is faced with for the extension of <br /> Valley. <br /> Leonard Newman, representing Mackay Homes, <br /> stated that their plans are to start this <br /> year. Sales in the area have been good. <br /> Everything to the right of Hansen has been <br /> brought into the program. <br /> As no one else wished to speak, the public <br /> hearing was closed. <br /> Commissioner Hirst made some comments with <br /> regard to the sewage. Asa rezoning, he did <br /> not expect it to change the rate of growth <br /> over what has already been proposed. The <br /> City Manager has set up meetings with VCSD. <br /> Commissioner Pons appreciated Mr. Seymour's <br /> concern and found it valid. He would like t <br /> hold the multiples until such time as the <br /> sewer and other facilities are available. <br /> Mr. Castro then stated that these needs woul <br /> be the same with any other residential de- <br /> velopment. He further questioned the <br /> exclusion of multiples when the single-famil <br /> units are as much a concern, if not more. <br /> - 9 - <br />