My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN040192
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN040192
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:03 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 10:09:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
Carol Golden, 3693 Mohr Avenue, did not speak for or against <br />project. Her main concern was how the children would safely get to <br />and from school on foot or on their bicycles. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift explained that the Specific Plan put a cul de sac at <br />the end of Martin Avenue which would flow eithe[ into a school or <br />park site in some fashion, so either a pedestrian or bicyclist <br />would have access into a school or park facility. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer asked if the applicant were willing to make the <br />changes requestedby the neighbors, particularly with regard to low <br />density lots around the Martin area cul de sac and reversing the <br />school site and the park. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gahrahmat indicated he was willing to work with staff to <br />modify the design, but was concerned that the requested changes <br />would require processing a Specific Plan change. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mayor Mercer closed the <br />public hearing. <br /> <br /> Mariam Chu, 4962 E1 Camino #208, Los Altos, one of the owners <br />of the property, indicated four different plans have been submitted <br />for review, including one with low density where the Specific Plan <br />indicates for the buffer area. Additional homes at the end of the <br />cul de sac is contrary to the Specific Plan. Also the school site <br />is where the Specific Plan calls for it. The only thing that was <br />switched is the park next to the Stoneridge, which was moved <br />east/west to the site. Ms. Chu clarified the total net acreage is <br />47.8 acres, which is what was used to calculate the allowable <br />units. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr pointed that if the school site is flip-flopped, in <br />order to preserve the same acreage, the developer has to remove the <br />first row of townhouses on the east end. She asked if that had <br />been included in the discussions with the neighbors. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner indicated the letter from the school district <br />stated that the original siting for the school was west of what is <br />currently being shown. She was concerned about who controls the <br />siting. <br /> <br /> Brian Swift clarified how the school site was selected and <br />pointed out that a specific plan change is not necessary to reverse <br />the school and park. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer asked the City Attorney if Council can approve <br />the project to go through Growth Management subject to an agreed <br />upon plan between the neighbors and the developer. <br /> <br />04/01/92 Page 6 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.