My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 09/10/80
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1980
>
PC 09/10/80
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:11:52 PM
Creation date
4/30/2007 9:41:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/10/1980
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 09/10/80
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
John Ennis, 158b Foothill Road spoke. He stated that unfortunately, <br />due to an automobile accident he was unable to attend any of the Land <br />Use Committee meetings but that he had been in contact with several <br />Committee members and that comments by Commissioner Getty do not <br />address the issue as the issue is whether the concept is valid or not <br />valid. He cited Modesto as an example as to what could happen if the <br />Urbanization Line were removed. He urged the Urbanization Line not be <br />eliminated. <br />Frank Damerval, 5381 Springdale Avenue stated the concept doesn't <br />function in Pleasanton because we have adequate controls and seriously <br />questioned the criteria which would be used to restructure a line. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Getty, seconded by Commissioner Lindsey <br />that the negative declaration prepared for case GP-80-5 be recommended <br />for approval as none of the above changes would have a significant <br />effect on the environment. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />Ayes: Commissioners Doherty, Getty, Lindsey and Chairperson Wilson <br />Noes: None <br />Absent: Commissioner Jamieson <br />Resolution No. 1906 was then recommended for approval for case GP-80-5. <br />Discussion then ensued concerning the items on a case-by-case basis by <br />the Commissioners and the following votes were taken regarding them: <br />Items 1, 2 and 3: Commissioners Getty (Item 1) since the owners <br />already have 16 sewer permits this property should probably be low <br />density. <br />A motion was made to change Item 1 to Low Density, keeping Items 2 and 3 <br />as recommended by the Land Use Committee. <br />Motion: Commissioner Getty <br />Second: Commissioner Doherty <br />Ayes: Commissioners Doherty, Getty, Lindsey and Chairperson Wilson <br />Noes: None <br />Absent: Commissioner Jamieson <br />Items 4, 5 and 6: A motion was made by Commissioner Doherty, seconded <br />by Commissioner Lindsey that these items be recommended for approval <br />as recommended by the Land Use Committee: <br />Motion: Commissioner Doherty <br />Second: Commissioner Lindsey <br />Ayes: Commissioners Doherty, Getty, Lindsey and Chairperson Wilson <br />Noes: None <br />Absent: Commissioner Jamieson <br />-12- <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.