CCMIN052272 - Laserfiche WebLink

these standards, he will be able to estimate more accurate projection in terms of Community facilities and housing types available to the potential citizen of this city~, Mr. Hirst reviewed his proposed ordinance and asked for a two week period to include a few items that Mr. Castro had pointed out, such as parking ratios, open space and different design standards. Extensive discussion on this entire matter ensued. Mayor Reid allowed Mr. Ted Fairfield to speak on this matter~ Mr. Fairfield stated that he did not feel that this ordinance was necessary nor did it get to the point that it is trying to reach and emphasized that adoption of it would be a mistake~ Among other clarifications, Mr. Fairfield also clarified the "ownership vs rental" types of multi- ple dwellings. He concluded that he felt that the Council should be concerned with Land Use Intensity formula which can be used for both design and analysis. Mr. Hirst responded to Mr. Fairfield's remarks by stating that he felt that this proposed ordinance was a begining of this problem and Mr. Fairfield's suggestions only gets at one aspect of the problem. Mayor Reid asked for more information regarding Land Use Intensity and continued this matter until June 5th, 1972. SPECIAL REPORTS Review of Kaiser Reclamation Pro~e,ct ~r. Edgar announced that this matter was continued from the last Council meeting and that Mr. Corley, representing the Kaiser Sand and Gravel Company, was here to report on this reclamation project~ Mr. John Corley reported that this matter has been before the Alameda County Planning Commission for a total of four times and all of these · -.. times~I~ere ,after it was presented to the City of Pleasanton. He in- dicated that both the Encon Report and an adendum to this report has been submitted to the Alameda County Planning Commission and just last week the City Manager was given a copy of the Inviornmental Impact · Study from which the Encom Report was compiled. Mr. Corley explained that what Kaiser is currently attemping to do is to be granted an amendment .to the Quarry Permit from Alameda County which would allow the submission of a land reclamation project which would include a permit to back-fill the pits with clay and silk for approximately 30 feet and then the remainder be filled with solid waste. Mr, Corley further stated that if the amendment to the Quarry Permit was granted, then Kaiser would have tc 9o back to the County Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit to allow dumping of solid wastes into the pits. Mr. Corley continued by stating that these plans have to be submitted to .some 29 agencies which are given an opportunity to view the app- lication based on their specific interests. He stated that the City of .Pleasanton is a referral agency and they'have to determine what impact this~ will have on the city and not become involved with the technical aspects of water quality. He further stated that the Water Quality Control Board is in possession of Kaiser's application at .... the present time. He emphasized that WQCB will be the agency that decides whether or not Kaiser can proceed and their decision is based upon the technical question of the potential for pollution of the underground water. In conclusion, Mr. Corley stated that he felt that the City of Pleasanton could be more effective in their studies if it would confine .their discussions to matters of traffic, planning and air pollution and make a recommendation to Aleumeda County Planning Commission of these factors. 3 o 5-22-72