Laserfiche WebLink
321 <br /> <br />After discussion, Council directed staff to contact the Alameda County Planning <br />Commission to request that a public hearing be held in Pleasanton for testimony <br />by persons most directly affected by this proposed project, before a decision is <br />made on the gravel quarry permit on Foothill Road. Mayor Mercer stated he would <br />contact Supervisor Excell relative to this matter. Council also determined that <br />a Councilmember and a staff person would attend the public hearing in Hayward on <br />April 6, 1981, to present the adverse impacts of this proposal on Pleasanton. <br />Council was urged by the City Attorney to review the draft Environmental Impact <br />Report in detail and make any comments they might have to him before April 6th. <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL COmmITTEE REPORTS <br /> Councilmembers presented various Committee Reports for the information of the <br />C ounc i 1. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer stated that at the last LAFCO meeting the City of Livermore asked <br />the County to conduct a study on their sphere of influence relative to planning <br />around Livermore. Mayor Mercer stated that with the many proposed developments <br />in surrounding areas he felt Pleasanton should be included in the study. He stated <br />that Supervisor Cooper had questions about why the study was needed and who would <br />pay for it. Mayor Mercer suggested this matter be discussed further at the next <br />City Council meeting for recommendation at the LAFCO meeting on April 16, 1981. <br />Council concurred. <br /> <br />MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC <br /> Mr. Warren Cederborg, 6753 Singletree Court, stated he had many concerns about <br />the proposed gravel quarry on Foothill Road. He stated he did not feel the draft <br />Environmental Impact Report addressed all of the adverse impacts adequately or <br />listed proper alternatives. He advised he had concerns regarding increased truck <br />traffic, noise, and dust. He stated the proposed project will have a significant <br />impact on Pleasanton and he urged Council to take a strong stand on this issue. <br />Councilmember Mohr advised Mr. Cederborg that he could attend the public hearing <br />in Hayward relative to this matter or ~rcite a letter to the Alameda County Planning <br />Commission to make his concerns known. Mayor Mercer suggested that a separate <br />letter be sent to Alameda County Planning Commissioner Gene Upshaw, regarding the <br />City's position on the proposed quarry. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynn Bowers, Sunol, developer of low density housing, stated he had concerns <br />about the Residential Allocation Program. He stated he felt there should be more <br />flexibility relative to the exemption for R-i-20,000 housing, especially on hillside <br />planned developments where it is sometimes difficult to divide a lot precisely at <br />20,000 sq. ft. because of the terrain. Mayor Mercer suggested he write. a letter <br />expressing his concerns. He advised Mr. Bowers that the Residential Allocation <br />Program ordinance would be discussed at a City Council meeting on April 21, 1981. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARINGS <br />Adoption of ordinance amendin~ Title .!I~ .Chapter 1 by addin~ Article 13 (Condominium~ <br />TownhouSe~ and Stock Cooperative Conversions.) <br />(Contd. Open frqm 12-23-80 and 2-10-81) <br /> Mr. Levine presented his report (SR 81:91) dated March 19, 1981, regarding this <br />matter. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer declared the continued public hearing open on this item. <br /> <br /> The following persons spoke in favor of a condominium conversion ordinance to <br />limit condominium conversion in Pleasanton: <br /> <br /> 4. 3/24/81 <br /> <br /> <br />