My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 02/13/73
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1970-1979
>
1973
>
PC 02/13/73
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2017 11:51:51 AM
Creation date
4/30/2007 3:54:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/13/1973
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 02/13/73
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
CITY of PLEASANTON <br />Planning Commission <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />Dote : February 13, 1973 <br />Time : s:os P.M. <br />PIG C0; Pleasanton Justice Court <br />Commissioner McLain stated that under a 250 <br />Growth Rate, planning can be nebulous re: <br />single family versus multiple units. Secret <br />Castro replied that reapportioning of growth <br />numbers can be made. He further stated tha~. <br />the City was just attempting to place 26% ~, <br />of the units in multiple development and thee,, <br />balance in single family, and found this very+ <br />difficult in the 250 Growth Category. i <br />Acting Chairman Pereira thanked the Parks an <br />Recreation Commission for being present that <br />evening. <br />It was his feeling that he needed more time <br />to review the information presented that <br />evening before he could make a recommendatio <br />He requested a written summary of what he <br />had heard presented by the Director of <br />,Community Development. <br />!Secretary Castro explained that although <br />some written material had been given to the <br />Commissioners just that evening, that basics <br />what is contained in that written material w <br />repeated orally by him, and all he needed <br />from the Commission at this point is a very <br />general "ballpark" figure to take back to <br />Livingston & Blayney, <br />Commissioner Garrigan indicated that he felt <br />250 would be too low. Previously, the City <br />had been utilizing 1,000. Perhaps the City <br />should try 500, or a graduated number. <br />Commissioner Wood had a question regarding <br />the statute of limitations and how it would <br />affect the approved final lots outstanding. ~! <br />Discussion followed. <br />Y <br />-15- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.