|
Page 25, Section 7.23, Item 2~ (third paragraph, line 3): Change 'bery"
<br />to "vary"
<br />Page 28 (top line): Change "modity" to "modify",
<br />Mr, Cecil Beebe, repreaenting P.G. & E., was in the audience and stated that
<br />the P,G. ~ E. officials who reviewed the Ordinance thought this was one of the
<br />finest ordinances they have reviewed. They had suggested that on Page 26,
<br />Section 8.01, Item 9, line 4, the words "public streets" be substituted for
<br />"righta~of-waq". Mr. Beebe stated the F.G. & E. would prefer to have underground
<br />services in the street, aad that easements should be determined by the public
<br />utility. It was decided to insert in Item 9, line 4, 'following the word "public"
<br />the word "streets", Also, at the end of Item 9 another sentence should be added
<br />as follows: 10The precise location of underground utilities within public streets,
<br />rights-of-way or easements shall be determined by the public utility concerned,"
<br />Mr, Bert Harper, Pacific Telephone Co„ was present in the audience and stated
<br />that with reference to Article 8, there could be litigation as to who would pay
<br />fox utilities, Mr. Fales stated that ordinarily this should be a matter of
<br />negotiation between the subdivider and the utility. Mr. Ed Gardner, of the
<br />Engineering Department, Pacific Telephone Co., was also in the audience and said
<br />that in Article 8 it could be inferred that the underground requirement would be
<br />in Item 9 (coat of subdivider). City Attorney Struthers was asked for an opinion
<br />on this matter, and stated it is dangerous to express in the Ordinance anything
<br />that would directly control the relationship between public utilities and the
<br />subdivider.
<br />There being no further comments, Vice-Chairman Landon declared the public hearing
<br />closed. Upan motion of Vice-Chairman Landon, seconded by Cov®isaioner Lozano,
<br />the following resolution was unanimously adopted by those Commissioners present:
<br />RESOLUTION N0. 188
<br />RESQLVED:
<br />The Planning Commission of the City of Pleasanton does hereby
<br />approve and recommend to the City Council adoption of a proposed
<br />Subdivision Ordinance in the form approved this date after public hears
<br />inga duly held. Said proposed Ordinance ie that draft presented by
<br />Pacific Planning & Research in 1960, as corrected aad modified,
<br />The next item on the agenda was the request of Mr. Jay D. Lambert, 2357 Strobridge
<br />Avenue, Castro Valley, for a Zoning Permit with Site Plan and Architectural Ap-
<br />proval in order to construct a two-story, six-unit multiple dwelling at the noreh-
<br />eaet corner of Harrison and Angela Streets, in an RG-15 District. (Continued
<br />from meeting of November 1,) Mr. Lambert was in the audience and presented his
<br />revised plane. Mr. Fales said it would be necessary for Mr. Lambert to apply
<br />for a Variance, the public hearing on which could be held on December 6, and
<br />a request for a Zoning Permit could also be scheduled on the agenda for this date.
<br />It was decided Mr. Lambert would make the changes suggested by the Commission,
<br />and the matter was continued to the meeting of December 6.
<br />Vice-Chairmen Landon then proceeded to the application of Mra. Anna H. Brown,
<br />444 Division Street, for a Zoning Permit with Site Plan and Architectural Ap-
<br />proval, in order to construct multiple dwellings upon property located at 484A
<br />and 484B Division Street, in an RG-15 District. Mrs. Brown was present in the
<br />audience, ae was Mr. Vic Stuchlik, Jr., repreaenting hie father who was unable
<br />to be present. The plot plan, designating 29 unite, requiring 44 parking spaces,
<br />was not clear in reproduction, and Vice-Chairman Landon suggested the matter be
<br />continued to the meeting of December 6, before which time the plot plan could be
<br />put in more precise condition--the parking arrangements should be considered
<br />further, aad the applicant wee requested to have prepared more than one alterna-
<br />tive to present to the Commission.
<br />There being no Communications or Matters for the Information of the Commission,
<br />upon motion by Commissioner Lozano, and seconded by Cot®isaioner Rega, the meeting
<br />was adjourned at 9:29 P.M. to meet again on Thursday, Decemb 6, 1962, at
<br />8:00 P.M, ~!' ~ ~
<br />
|