My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 11/08/67
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1960-1969
>
1967
>
PC 11/08/67
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/24/2013 3:14:57 PM
Creation date
7/5/2007 10:10:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/8/1967
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 11/08/67
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
8. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION ."SAPS <br />a. Tract 2905 - Hansen home P.anch. <br />Next was the application of the Hansen home Ranch, request for Tentative <br />1~Iap Approval of Tract 29v"5, i•Sr. Castro presented the staff report which <br />recommended approval caith conditions. There was considerable discussion <br />concerning the lack of time the Commission had for studying the map before <br />reaching a decision. The question was raised whether or not Valley Avenue <br />could handle the increased amount of traffic the subdivision would cause. <br />Mr. Castro stated that according to traffic studies made, there should be <br />no problem, i4r. Fales gave a brief background of the map, indicating that when <br />the first time period was up, an extension was granted to make a traffic <br />study at the expense of the City. tor. Pales added that one of the major <br />problems with the tract is that the line separating the aurray School Dis- <br />trict and the Pleasanton Elementary School District runs approximately through <br />the middle of the tract. I•ir. Ted Fairfield stated the school districts were <br />presently satisfied caith the boundary changes. The Commission questioned <br />why there was no area designated for institutional use. FIr. Fairfield informed <br />them that at least one church site was planned, and more could be designated <br />though they weren't shown on the map. <br />Tor. Fales expressed his concern that the map be acted upon as soon as possi- <br />ble because of other complications. :1r. ?•]illiam Gale, representing the <br />proposed owner of the tract, was also concerned that the tract be acted <br />on as soon as possible. <br />UPON ^fOTION OF CHAIRc1ATd AidTONINI, SECO;dDEL BY CO:~II•iISSI0NE2 ARNOLD, AND CARRIED, <br />IT G7AS DECIDED TO CONTINUE TFiE PUBLIC IIEARING ON TIIE TRACT TO NOVEiL3ER 21, 1967. <br />UPON MOTION OF COIII4ISSIONER PLATO, SECONDED SY CIi.4IFudAN ANTONINI, AND CARRIED, <br />IT WAS DECIDED THAT IN THE FUTURE NO SUBDIVISION i~ETINGS 470ULD BE FIELD <br />?4ITHOLYt TWO PLANNING COM:4ISSIONERS PRESENT. <br />Sb. .MS-67-2. Stoneson Develooment Comoanv. Tract 2843. <br />Application of Stoneson Development Company, 3150 20th Avenue, San Francisco, <br />to relocate the westerly property line of Lot 81 due to a misjudgment in the <br />pouring of the house foundation. No action Baas taken on this item. <br />There being no further business to come before the Conmii.ssion, upon motion <br />of Commissioner Garrigan, seconded by Chairman Antonini, the meeting was <br />adjourned at 12:30 A.II„ to meet again on Gledneaday, November 15, 1967. <br />11-8-67 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.