My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
RES 75201
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1970-1979
>
1975
>
RES 75201
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/23/2001 7:55:37 PM
Creation date
3/30/2000 5:04:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
9/15/1975
DOCUMENT NO
RES 75201
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission to the City Council; and <br />WHEREAS, the transcript of the Planning Commission meeting, <br /> <br />WHEREAS , <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />WHEREAS , <br /> <br /> staff <br />report with exhibits, exhibits presented at the Planning <br />Commission meeting and a copy of Planning Commission <br />Resolution No. 1360 were transmitted to the City Council <br />for review; and <br />the City Council considered the applicant's appeal on Sep- <br />tember 15and 16,1975, at the Justice Court, 30 W. Angela <br />Street; and <br />the applicant, his attorney or representative, and inter- <br />ested members of the public were afforded the opportunity <br />to testify on this matter and present any information to <br />the City Council; and <br />at the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council delib- <br />erated on the testimony, materials, exhibits and informa- <br />tion previously transmitted to it and considered that <br /> <br /> evening; <br /> <br />NOW, THEREFORE, THE <br />RESOLVEAS FOLLOWS: <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES <br /> <br />Section 1. The City Council sustains the action of the Planning <br /> Commission in denying the requested modification to <br /> §2-3.40, Article 7, Chapter 1, Title II of the Ordinance <br /> Code of the City of Pleasanton relating to public streets <br /> in subdivisions. Thus, the request of Dr. Howard Long <br /> for a private street is denied, for the same reasons <br /> adopted by the Planning Commission, to wit: <br /> <br /> (1) The proposed design does not contain or attempt <br /> to provide safety devices such as guard rails, <br /> vehicular runaway ramps, or vehicular turn outs. <br /> <br /> (2) An 18-foot wide travel lane is too narrow to <br /> safely accommodate two-way vehicular traffic on <br /> a hillside having a continuous slope of 20% for <br /> a distance of approximately 1700 feet. <br /> <br /> (3) The design of the roadway as proposed contains <br /> inadequate drainage provisions to prevent runoff <br /> from the adjacent hillsides from causing debris <br /> to buildup on the roadway, thus presenting a <br /> safety hazard. <br /> <br /> (4) No good, sufficient and adequate justification <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.