02/13/64 - Laserfiche WebLink

make a recommendation in writing. Mr. Fales said also that this is the first ap- plication for annexation which will have to go through the new County Local Agencies Formation Commission and, therefore, the exact slap..^,ed time for the proceedings cannot be predicted. It was moved by Commissioner Antonini, seconded by Commisaione~r Wipfli, and carried, that the Planning Commission set a public hearing on this mat- ter for March 25, 1964. The next item on the agenda was the Chabot Junior College Site Selection Committee recommendations re Livermore-Amador Valley Junior College site. Mr, Fales stated that the Junior College Board of Trustees asked the Chambers of Commerce of Livermore and Pleasanton to formulate some general recommendations in terms of sites of 100 acres in order that they could refer them to their consultants. A committee from Livermore and a committee from Pleasanton were formed, Mr. Fales being a member of the latter. He said the consultants recommend that ultimately there should be two campuses in the Valley. Four sites were chosen in Pleasanton Township; six in Murray Township; and one additional site, making a total of eleven. The Junior College Site Selection Committee will be in the Valley on Saturday, February 15, and Mr. Fales and Mayor McWilliams will accompany them on a tour of suggested sites. The following are the four sites recommended in Pleasanton Township: (1) Immediately south of the State Highway 680 and U.S. Highway 50 freeway interchange. (2) In the vicinity of the Bernal Avenue interchange. This would enable reciprocal use of the Fairgrounds and Junior College campus. (3) Southeasterly of U.S. Highway 50 and Santa Rita Road--this area is now in the City of Pleasanton. (4) Adjacent to the intersection of Isabel Avenue and Vineyard Avenue. This vicinity was recommended by both Livermore and Pleasanton. Because of its central location in the Valley, this site would make selection of a second site more difficult. Mr. Falea stated further that when the number of sites has been narrowed, the Junior College District. will undoubtedly want specific recommendations from the Planning Commission. He wil: keep the Commission and Council closely informed as to progress of the Committee. Mr. Falea read a co~nication from the Alameda County Planning Commission request- ing comment or recommendation relevant to the application of Howard F. and Violet E, Long to permit division of a parcel of land into two lots; one of which orould have no frontage on a County road, the second, frontage reduced. The subject property is on Foothill Road, southwest of Bernal Avenue. It was moved by Commis- sioner Wipfli, seconded by Commissioner Rega, and carried, that the staff be instructed to communicate with the County Planning Commission indicating that the Pleasanton Planning Commission is not in favor of the application because it does not conform to our regular policy of approving property fronting on an approved public road. A second communication was received from the County Planning Commission with regard to a Tentative Map of Tract 2434, in the Dublin area. Since this area is outside Pleasanton's planning area, no recommendation was made. Upon motion of Commissioner Antonini, seconded by Commissioner Wipfli, the meeting was adjourned at 9:12 P.M. to a joint study session with the City Council re: Citizens General Plan Study Committee. Chairman Landon reconvened the meeting at 10:00 P.M, Upon motion of Commissioner Wipfli, seconded by Commissioner Rega, the meeting was adjourned at 10:02 P.M., to meet again on Thursday, February 20, 1964, at 8:00 P.M.