Laserfiche WebLink
353 <br /> <br /> sion of 36 feet; and amending the Zoning Map of the City of Pleasanton accordingly, <br /> be introduced. <br /> The roll call vote was as follows: <br /> AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Kephart, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Mercer <br /> NOES: None <br /> ABSENT: None <br /> <br /> Tract No. 4372 (Pestana) - Amber Lane Alignment <br /> Mr. Warnick presented his report (SR 81:57) dated February 18, 1981, regarding <br /> this matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Ted Fairfield, Civil Engineering representing Mr. Pestana, stated his comments <br />were contained in a letter attached to the staff report. He urged Council to approve <br />the original plan that was submitted for this development. <br /> <br /> Mr. Donald Jackson, 6140 Amber Road, stated that after review of the alternatives <br />he preferred Plan B - Elimination of Amber Lane southerly of Rosepointe. He stated <br />that Plan A - Simple extension of Pestana Court, would be a temporary solution and <br />would create problems later. He requested Council to consider a third option; if <br />the City and Mr. Pestana are serious about the necessity for having a northeast en- <br />trance to the tract, then purchase the 20 ft. strip of easement, arriving at some <br />arrangement that is fair to the properties involved, and develope it as a City street. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bernie Roth, 720 Mockingbird Lane, property owner directly to the east of <br />Amber Road, stated he concurs with the previous speaker. He advised he prefers the <br />option which has no roads entering on Amber Road. He stated he had some concerns <br />about the original plan. Mr. Roth stated the roads in this area do need improving <br />and suggested incorporating both the Couty side of the road as well as the City side <br />and make it into a public road mainted by the City for public use. Mr. Roth stated <br />he is concerned that the County road will not be properly maintained by them. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rick Ferry, 6535 Hanover Court, stated he preferred Alternate Plan B - <br />Elimination of Amber Lane southerly of Rosepointe, because of the traffic problems <br />that already exist in this area. <br /> <br /> Mrs. Judy Jackson, 6140 Amber Road, stated that Mr. Pestana had purchased the <br />property to make a profit, but she felt it was unfair to do so by victimizing the <br />adjacent property owners. <br /> <br /> Mrs. Jessie RobieJo, 5423 Amber Lane, reiterated her position in opposition to <br />an entrance to Amber Lane, stating this will increase traffic and create a dangerous <br />situation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Ted Fairfield stated that Mr. Pestana had acquired the property to widen Amber <br />Lane subject to final probate, and the street will be built to standard specifications. <br />He urged Council to make a decision tonight on this item. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Mohr stated she felt that the original plan will adversely impact <br />upon the private lane and that Alternate Plan A will allow the City the option to <br />improve the street later on. <br /> <br /> After discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Kephart, and seconded by Council- <br />member Butler, that Resolution No. 81-50, approving the application of Ernest Pestana <br />for tentative map approval for Tract 4372 for a 49-1ot single-family residential <br />subdivision on a 35 acre site located between the Rosepointe subdivision and Happy <br /> <br /> 5. 2/24/81 <br /> <br /> <br />