My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 02/23/71
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1970-1979
>
1971
>
PC 02/23/71
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2017 11:42:18 AM
Creation date
4/30/2007 4:52:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/23/1971
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 02/23/71
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
~4y$~SAlyToy CITY of PLEASANTON <br />~~~ fission <br />~.,,. Planning Comm <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />D C18 February 23, 1971 <br />Time : s:oo PM <br />Place; Pleasanton Justice Court <br />Mr. David Bigger, 301 J~3nipero. Opposed <br />the development because of sewer problems. <br />Mr. Harry Sweet, San Luis Court. Did not <br />feel the development, as attractive as the <br />preliminary plans are, should be permitted <br />in the Mission Park area because of the <br />already high concentration of multiples. <br />He also cited the problems of schools, <br />traffic, water and sewer. <br />There being no further testimony, the Publ <br />Hearing was then closed. <br />Commissioner Wood had no comments to offer <br />at this time. <br />Commissioner Pereira felt the entire 48 ac. <br />should be considered at one time rather than <br />the one portion. <br />Commissioner Pons concurred with the positi n <br />taken by Commissioner Pereira. He further <br />acknowledged the applicant's patience in th s <br />matter. <br />Commissioner Hirst took the same position <br />that the entire 48 acres should be conside <br />at one time, particularly as it relates to <br />park dedication. <br />Chairman Carrigan reaffirmed the position <br />taken by the other Commissioners. <br />Mr. Ray Feichtmeier of Tecton Company then <br />spoke again, citing a lower ratio of school <br />children in a development like he is pro- <br />posing than would be generated by a conven- <br />tional single family development. He also <br />requested that the Commission give him some <br />guidance as to whether it would be feasible <br />for his organization to continue to nego- <br />tiate for this approval. <br />Discussion followed. <br />- 11 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.