|
M I N U T E S
<br />of
<br />THE PLANNING CafII~ffSSION
<br />Pleasanton, California
<br />June 14, 1967
<br />The regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order
<br />at 8:00 P.M. on Wednesday, June 14, 1967, by Chairman Antonini.
<br />ROLL CALL showed the following:
<br />Present: Commissioner Arnold
<br />Garrigan
<br />Plato
<br />Chairman Antonini
<br />Secretary Spink
<br />Absent: Commissioner Johnston
<br />Upon motion of Commissioner Garrigan, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, and
<br />carried, the minutes of May 24, 1967, were approved as presented by unanimous
<br />vote.
<br />4a. PPL-67-2 Planning Commission.
<br />Chairman Antonini opened the public hearing on the application of the Planning
<br />Commission for an amendment to Article 18A, Ordinance No. 309, establishing
<br />precise plan lines for alignment, special building setback, and future street
<br />width lines for Del Valle Parkway from Hopyard Road to Pico Avenue. Mr. Spink
<br />presented the staff report which recommended a recommendation to the City
<br />Council to adopt the precise plan lines for Del Valle Parkway from Hopyard to
<br />Pico Avenue in accordance with Exhibit "A". Mr. Campbell presented background
<br />information on this subject, starting with the General Plan of 1958 and con-
<br />tinuing up to the present. There were several landowners present in the
<br />audience offering protest against the precise plan lines as shown.
<br />Dick Irby, Stanley Boulevard, stated he did not want his property tied up for
<br />the next three to five years waiting for the Parkway to be built.
<br />Dan Pons, 4242 Vervais Avenue, stated that he was against the plan because it
<br />was too expensive and not the proper plan to use.
<br />Mrs. Berry, 348 Linden Way, stated that she was against the plan.
<br />George Garibaldi, 4230 Vervais, stated that he was not against the parkway, but
<br />asked whether or not he would be bought out completely or in part only. It
<br />was pointed out that the City rmiat consider purchase of land and not purchase
<br />of improvements.
<br />Mr. Rittenour, 4017 Walnut Drive, asked whether or not the Planning Commission
<br />was an advisory body to the City Council. Mr. Rittenour was informed that
<br />the Commission is an advisory body to the Council.
<br />Gene Pons, 588 E. Angela, suggested following Stanley Boulevard instead of
<br />the Arroyo.
<br />Mrs. Lola Hagan, 4112 Stanley, stated that she had an old house and that she
<br />wanted to fix it and wondered whether or not she would be reimbursed when the
<br />City buys the land. Mr. Struthers explained the procedure regarding purchase
<br />of land for a proposed street.
<br />Mra. Katen, Stanley Boulevard, stated that she was against the parkway as pro-
<br />posed and suggested that the creek bed be used for the roadway.
<br />Mr. Katen, Stanley Blvd., stated that he was against the parkway and wondered
<br />what would happen to the "dead-end" of Stanley Blvd.
<br />Albert Johnson, 4086 Stanley Blvd., stated that he was against the proposed
<br />parkway.
<br />Upon motion of Commissioner Arnold, seconded by Commissioner Garrigan, and
<br />carried, the public hearing was closed. After further discussion by the
<br />Commission, UPON MOTION OF COMMISSIONER PLATO, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GARRIGAN,
<br />AND CARRIED, IT WAS DETERMINED TO RE-OPEN THE PURLIC HEARING AND CONTINUE
<br />TO THE MEETING OF JULY 12, 1967. The public was advised that the plans are
<br />available at City Hall for review by anyone asking to see said plans.
<br />4b. RZ-67-3. John A. Comer.
<br />Chairman Antonini opened the public hearing on the application of John A. Comer,
<br />1949 West Winton Avenue, Hayward, for an amendment to Ordinance No. 309 amend-
<br />ing the district boundaries of the Zoning Map by redesignating property located
<br />6-14-67
<br />
|