Laserfiche WebLink
157 <br /> <br />Foothill Road Study/Detachment of Certa{n Property From the City <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush presented his report (SR 90194) regarding the <br />matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, representing A-M Homes, <br />stated that the A-M Homes Project has been on schedule until the <br />Foothill Road Corridor Study was proposed. He requested Council <br />to continue processing the A-M Homes Project and take the <br />necessary action to maintain the Project~s growth management <br />eligibility. <br /> <br /> Mr. Peter Hellman, President of Presley Homes, indicated his <br />intention to cooperate with the City. He requested Council to <br />consider the continuation of growth management. <br /> <br /> Ms. Margaret Tracy, President of Preserve Area Ridgelands <br />Committee, stated that the General Plan acknowledges the close <br />proximity of the Foothill Road to the Calaveras Fault, which is <br />capable of an earthquake with a magnitude of 7.0 on the Richter <br />scale. She urged the Council not to allow any residential <br />development west of Foothill Road. She inquired if this area <br />would be included in the Foothill Road Corridor Study. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer replied that the area west of Foothill Road would <br />be part of the EIR for the West Pleasanton Sphere of Influence <br />Study. He stated that the Foothill Road Corridor Study would <br />include the possible realignment of Foothill Road as well as <br />setbacks and development along Foothill Road. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver mentioned that two members of the Planning <br />Commission will not be available on Wednesday, April 4th and <br />requested that the joint meeting be rescheduled for Monday, April <br />2nd instead. Mr. Mercer indicated that the joint study session <br />would be rescheduled for Monday, April and, at 7:00 p.m. at the <br />City Council Chambers. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer stated that it would be fair to continue growth <br />management for A-M Homes and Presley Homes. He asked if it should <br />be continued for all the projects or only for these two. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes stated that he was opposed to the extension of <br />growth management. However, he would support an exception made <br />for the two developments because these would have qualified for <br />growth management if Council did not initiate the Foothill Road <br />study. He asked Mr. Swift if these are the only two projects that <br />fall in this category. <br /> <br /> - 17 - <br /> 3-6-90 <br /> <br /> <br />