My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 11/28/72
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1970-1979
>
1972
>
PC 11/28/72
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2017 11:44:43 AM
Creation date
4/30/2007 3:59:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/28/1972
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 11/28/72
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
4y$~-3ANToy C T <br />I Y of PLEA~ANTdN <br />~~~ <br />.~ <br />`~~~° Planning Commission <br />lIM tO S <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />DGte : November 2 8 , 19 72 <br />Time : $ : oo P.M. <br />PIGC@; Pleasanton Justice Court <br />appears that Valley Community ServicE <br />District apparently had intended <br />their submittal as an application. <br />Mr. Hirst has not been able to as- <br />certain whether maps, and formal <br />descriptions, etc., have been filed. <br />Commissioner McLain wished to know <br />whether V.C.S.D, has unlimited powers <br />to go ahead and annex. The City <br />Attorney replied that V.C.S.D. has <br />the right to seek an annexation with <br />LAFC if they so desire. <br />'Chairman Pons then wished to take a <br />count on whether the Commission <br />should go on record as concurring <br />with the position taken by the City <br />Manager as outlined in his letter <br />to the V.C.S.D. dated September 27, <br />19 72 . <br />Commissioner Pereira felt that there <br />is no land use considerations in <br />this application and he wondered if <br />the Commission should be getting <br />involved. <br />Commissioner McLain stated that it <br />seemed apparent that V.C.S.D. intends <br />to annex the area, and it was his <br />contention that the City should take <br />a strong stand on the matter. <br />Both Commissioners Carrigan and <br />Pereira disagreed, and felt the <br />Commission should not take a positi <br />at this time. <br />Discussion followed. <br />The City Attorney did indicate that <br />there should be plenty of time for <br />the City to take a stand on the mat <br />after the General Plan Review is <br />-5- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.