Laserfiche WebLink
the County of Alameda. This deten,!ination is based upon the <br /> potential size ef tile eoms~uuities and the effect of urban growth <br /> upe~ the general enviromnent of the Valley; and <br /> <br />Wt{EREAS, tile Cenera! Plan amendment to accommodate the Las Pos/tas New Towix <br /> <br /> js ao~ before the Alan~eda County Board of Supervisors. <br /> <br />NOW, ~71~EREFOKE, THE CITY COUNCIl. OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTO~l DOES t[EREBY Rt{StiLVP <br />AS YtDLL,)WS: <br /> <br /> Section I. l'he City of PJ, easanton reaffir~ns its previous position <br /> as stated in Resolution No. 74-14 regarding the estai~lisb. ment t~f <br /> the ias Positas i'Iew To~. <br /> <br /> Section 2. The City of Pleasanton, in light of the above pos~tic~n <br /> staten~ent, believes that all plannir~g, land use, an~ zoDing con- <br /> ~derations as well, as development control t~hould be the purview ef <br /> the City of Livermore. <br /> Sectiou '~, The City of Pleasanton vi~,oronsly opposes this or any <br /> <br /> other ~eve]opment that would prevent '~L~:rle 7 of t~!e Ala~eda County <br /> FJoed Control and Water Conservation District fxo~: serving the wear <br /> end of the Valley with treated State Aq. ednct water in quantities <br /> <4~t~xdnded by the City of Ple~sautou and t,&~e Valley Commuajty <br /> District, <br /> <br /> Section 4. The City of Pleasanton si~]srly oppoaes this or any <br /> other development which x~fou].~ preclude the conanunities in the <br /> western portion of the Valley ~rom obt~ining Federal and State <br /> <br /> Section 5, The City of Pleasanton believes that the Las Posita~= <br /> ~!e~' Toxin wi!l detract fro~"~ the balesneed }~rowE~ concept w~th~ nhe <br /> ux[:~i~ V~,lley (~inmu~ties through the deve]opr~cnt of ;~ddit~onai <br /> <br /> u~e.e~e~ [~d~strial anti c~:{nerclal property. This x,,~l!, in <br /> prolong the develoDment of existing con~erc~a/ll' and ir~,tustrial]y <br /> zo:~ad propel'ties ~,;~Ehla e>:i=~ti~g ~;~[]cy Conmunition. <br /> <br /> <br />