My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN070196
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
CCMIN070196
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:45 AM
Creation date
5/13/1999 10:28:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/1/1996
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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).
View images
View plain text
It was moved by Ms. Michelotti, seconded by Ms. Mohr, to allow further testimony <br />so long as it is not redundant. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers - Dennis, Michelotti, Mohr, Pico, and Mayor Tarver <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarvet indicated Council would hear public comment on the adequacy of the Final <br />Environmental Impact Report and on specific comments on recommendations being made. <br />Council will go through item by item and have a straw vote on each item, with a final vote to <br />be taken on hly 15. He stressed that the speakers should address only new information. <br /> <br /> Norma Lemoine, 4456 Foothill Road, presented a letter to Council urging it endorse the <br />Planning Commission's recommendation to retain the LDR designation on the 17-acre, fiat <br />portion of her site adjacent to Foothill Road and not to redesignate such area as RDR. <br /> <br /> Bill Hirst, 478 Ewing Drive, representing seven families who purchased property on <br />Foothill Road, indicated his belief that some development of the site should be permitted. They <br />have spent considerable sums in geotechnical testing of the site. He felt the existing General <br />Plan would permit 35 dwelling units on the site. Their preliminary development plan proposed <br />21 units. He urged Council not to adopt the General Plan Steering Committee recommendation <br />to redesignate the area and limit them to only eight or nine units. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked what he felt was a realistic mid-point designation for the property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hirst was not sure, but realistically, there are 21 sites for dwelling units. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked how many acres of the 230 acres would be developed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hirst said the 21 units would be on approximately thirty acres, with 200 acres left <br />in open space. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if that were to be private open space or would it be dedicated to the <br />City? <br /> <br /> Mr. Hirst indicated they were keeping an open mind and would consider some <br />arrangement to allow public use. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated the property is contiguous to East Bay Regional Park District lands, <br />but is not contiguous to the Augustin Bemal Park. <br /> <br />07/01/96 <br /> -4- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.