Laserfiche WebLink
381 <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer mentioned that he met with a neighbor who lives in <br />the Mohr-Martin area and is concerned that the Mohr House has <br />taken on more damage. He asked what the City would do about it <br />and how it would go about it. Mr. Mercer suggested that staff be <br />asked to take a cursory look at it, determine if there has been <br />further damage, and update its report. Council will then decide <br />whether to move it or not, now that the Stoneridge Drive Specific <br />Plan has been approved, and the City knows where the road will <br />go. <br /> <br />9. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS <br /> <br /> There were no City Council Committee Reports presented at <br />this meeting. <br /> <br />10. MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION <br />Item 10a <br />SP-88-3, City of Pleasanton and Stoneridge Drive Property Owners. <br />Adoption of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the <br />Stoneridqe Drive Specific Plan for a 293-acre site located south <br />of 1-580, west of E1 Charro Road, North of Trenery Drive, and east <br />of the Gatewood Apartments <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 89:425) regarding the <br />matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes indicated that he was opposed to what was <br />proposed for the Staples Ranch property. He stated that he could <br />not understand why airplanes and airports are considered potential <br />hazards for residential use but not for business parks or <br />commercial and industrial development. He agreed with the park <br />addition, but emphasized that the balance of the property should <br />be zoned for agricultural-commercial-recreational use. It could <br />be considered for the golf course the City is planning to build. <br />He continued that Stoneridge Drive does not warrant more than four <br />lanes and that he was not in favor of any expansion to six lanes. <br />He added that Phase I should not include the bridge because <br />putting a bridge in would include a commitment for a road to go <br />through in the future. He concluded that he was opposed to the <br />Chu property being anything other than low density. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer stated that the Citizens' General Plan Review <br />Committee recommended the Chu property to be high density; the <br />Council reduced it to medium density. This does not mean that all <br />the projects in the area have been approved; these will have to <br />come back to Council for review. He mentioned that he agreed with <br />Mr. Brandes' statement regarding airports and that the Golf <br />Committee is still looking at some possible sites for the course. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes inquired about the possibility of taking action <br />on the Specific Plan and leaving out the Staples Ranch property <br />for review at a later date, pending the findings of the Golf <br />Committee. <br /> <br /> -9- <br /> 10-3-89 <br /> <br /> <br />