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
41'$ ~L <br />As"N~° CITY of PLEASANTON <br />*~ ~o mission <br />.~ Planning m ~ <br />'~~tt0 t <br />~'' <br />~~ ~~~0'` <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. ~~~` '~~+~ <br />DCte : February 23, 1971 ~ <br />Time : s:oo PM <br />Place: Pleasanton Justice Court <br />Both Mrs. Amaral and Mr. Stan Jorgensen, who <br />also spoke in opposition of this rezoning, <br />are residents of the City. <br />Next a Mr. Robert McLeod, owner of property <br />on the west side of Foothill Road across frog <br />the proposed rezoning spoke. He advised the <br />Commission that he has owned land in the <br />area for 14 years. He is not in the City at <br />this time, however, last year, he received a <br />311% increase in taxes - 1300% since he <br />bought the land. <br />Mr. McLeod gave some background on the <br />Castlewood properties. He stated that the <br />RM-25 area which McKeon owns, was sold to <br />them for $351,000. He assumes that Castlewo <br />will sell the balance of the property they <br />presently own. His only objection is to the <br />commercial slated. <br />The public hearing was then closed. <br />Commissioner Hirst felt that the density <br />alone is not the sole controlling factor in <br />any development, as if this were in the <br />R-1 district, the Commission would have stil <br />less control. <br />Some discussion followed on the number of <br />lanes on Foothill Road, at what point the <br />present two lanes would become four. It was <br />clarified that from Sunol up to West Las <br />Positas Blvd., it is slated to be two-lane. <br />Commissioner Pons inquired why the Council <br />recommended that the multiple area be placed <br />in the RM-4 (PUD). Acting Secretary Aiello <br />advised that the reasoning behind this is <br />that the RM-4 is a lower density. Commissio er <br />Pons then stated that he felt the Commission <br />was making a fair and equitable recommenda- <br />tion when they asked for the RM-2500. <br />- 7 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.