My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
RES 69272
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1960-1969
>
1969
>
RES 69272
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/23/2001 11:42:00 PM
Creation date
6/15/2001 10:17:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
11/17/1969
DOCUMENT NO
RES 69272
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
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
WHEREAS: <br /> <br />WHEREAS: <br /> <br />WHEREAS: <br /> <br />WHEREAS: <br /> <br />NOW, <br /> <br /> CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> COUNTY OF ALAMEDA <br /> STATE OF CALIFORNIA <br /> <br /> RESOLUTION NO. 69-272 <br /> <br /> DISAPPROVAL OF TENTATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF <br /> FIRSTPLEASANTON INVESTORS <br /> <br />First Pleasanton Investors submitted an application to <br />amend its originally approved Planned Unit Development <br />with respect to a parcel of properSy ll.? acres in size <br />under the Planned Unit Development process; and <br /> <br />Said Tentative Development Plan proposed an increase in <br />area of multi-family dwellings of some 4 1/2 acres and <br />an increase in density from RM-2500 to RM-2000; and <br /> <br />The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Ten- <br />tative Development Plan with the re. sensation, however, <br />that said plan was to be in~lemented with a density no <br />greater than RM-2500; and <br /> <br />The Tentative Development Plan was considered in detail <br />by the City Council and oral and documentary evidence <br />taken. <br /> <br />THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: <br /> <br /> 1. That the Tentative Development Plan as submitted by the <br /> applicant, First Pleasanton Investors, and as approved by <br /> the Planning Commission is disapproved, and that to the <br /> extent that said disapproval constitutes a.change or modi <br /> fication in the Planning Commission's action, said plan <br /> is referred back to the Planning Commission for further <br /> review. <br /> <br />DATED: November 17, 1R69 <br />ATTEST'. <br /> <br />APPROVED AS TO FORM <br /> <br />WqLLtAM A, HIRST, City Attorney <br /> <br />Date~ <br /> <br />BERNARD T. GERTON, Mayor <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.