|
Letter from the San Francisco Water Department, dated January 15, 1965, indica-
<br />ting Chey have no objections to the General Plan.
<br />Report of the Alameda County Planning Commisai.on, dated Jan. 18, 1965, and letter
<br />dated Jan. 25, 1965, outlining their recommendations including: (1) Consideration
<br />be given to the extension of both Pine and Valley Avenues to interchanges with
<br />Route 680 freeway. (2) City restudy the advisability of either raising or
<br />lowering their plan holding capacity. (3) City consider the area between Pine
<br />Ave, and Valley Ave, and their proposed extension for residential use. (4) Con-
<br />flict with Livermore defining quarry areas where planning area boundaries over-
<br />lap. (5) Location of Regional Shopping Centers. (6) Greenwaya. (7) Parke.
<br />(8) Reservation of junior college site. Mr. Blayney said they took a midpoint
<br />holding capacity of 90,000; the area could actually hold 123,000. Mr. Falea
<br />stated that the General Plan is realistic--does not show too much green area.
<br />Mr. Blayney said more parka aze financially unfeasible. Re junior college site:
<br />District Board ie not yet ready to act. Re shopping centers: Mr. Blayney stated
<br />that some neighborhood centers designated may not develop.
<br />Letter from the City of Livermore, dated January 27, 1965, enclosing a report
<br />from George R. Mueao, Director of Planning, listing points in conflict with the
<br />City of Livermore's General Plan: (1) Planning area (uniform planning within
<br />overlapping areas). (2) Circulation (EL Charro Road extension follow the align-
<br />ment of Arroyo Mocho diagonal to Stanley Blvd,) (3) Airport. (4) Quarry. (5)
<br />Ruby Hill Vineyard (General Plan shows 4.7 unite per acre; Livermore recommends
<br />at least 3, or 2 dwelling unite per acre.) Mr. Blayney stated, with regard to
<br />the Ruby Hill Vineyard density recommended, that this is not an important con-
<br />sideration because the difference ie slight. With regard to quarrying, he
<br />believes it is possible for Pleasanton to adopt a Plan with which the City of
<br />Livermore would not entirely concur, Mr. Falea said he had hoped Livermore
<br />would have sent a map with alternate suggestions for land use south of Pine Ava.
<br />in the vicinity of the Livermore airport locatlon.
<br />Letter from J.R, and H.J. Deetz, Deetz Construction Co., 4227 Pleasanton Ave.,
<br />requesting a deadline date of 1990 for removal of hie buelneea from the north
<br />side of St. John Street. Mr. Blayney stated that this is a zoning question,
<br />but considers it desirable to remove the Deetz Construction Co, before 1990.
<br />Letter from the Southern Pacific Company recommending location of the Pine Ave.
<br />extension one mile south of U.S. Highway 50, and also discussing the industrial
<br />prospects of the area.
<br />Letter from the State Division of Highways, dated January 27, 1965, regarding
<br />interchange locations on Routes 580 and 680, and recommending provision for the
<br />Pine Ave. extension ae it is indicated on the proposed General Plan.
<br />Mr. Falea stated that Volk-McLain Communities, Inc. had submitted in writing
<br />elaboration of the oral reports given at the Planning Commission public hearing
<br />of January 6. They have also submitted a report by Mr. William Zion, Wilbur
<br />Smith & Associates, and Mr. Mitchell Baird.
<br />Letter from law offices of Charles B. Snow, 6075 Thornton Ave., Newark, dated
<br />January 27, 1965, on behalf of the incorporation committee of the City of Dublin,
<br />asking that any area included in the proposed City of Dublin be deleted from
<br />the City of Pleasanton's proposed General Plan. Mr. Pales called attention to
<br />the litigation of the area south of U.S, Highway 50, and said this case was
<br />decided by the Superior Court favorable to the City of Pleasanton. The case was
<br />appealed and it 1a currently in the District Court of Appeals. Sections of the
<br />State Law provide for the City of Pleasanton to do a plan of a general area out-
<br />side the City Limits. The proposed General Plan also overlaps the City of
<br />Livermore's planning area. The Pleasanton planning area grant was approved by
<br />the State of California and the Federal government.
<br />Chairman Landon asked for questions on procedure. There were none. He then pro-
<br />ceeded to open discussion on each area as listed on the General Plan.
<br />Residential Areas. Dudley Frost, of D & V Builders, Inc., expanded upon hie letter
<br />read earlier, and said he concurred with Mr. Blayney's remarks. He added that lots
<br />substantially larger than adjacent lots present a marketing problem and asked that
<br />it not be apecitied that each subdivision be handled in Chia manner.
<br />
|