My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 11/14/72
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1970-1979
>
1972
>
PC 11/14/72
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2017 11:44:51 AM
Creation date
4/30/2007 4:01:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/14/1972
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 11/14/72
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
gv~' y <br />~sA~T° CITY of PLEASANTON <br />~ ~•~ • ~ • • <br />~~~° Planning Commission <br />•I.MfD <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />DC?8 ; November 14, 1972 <br />Time ; 8:05 P.M. <br />PIGCe; Pleasanton Justice Court <br />eview of proposed annexation of Camp <br />arks to the Valley Community Service <br />istrict. <br />Reference was made to the letter date <br />September 27, 1972 from Pleasanton <br />City Manager to Paul Ryan of V.C.S.D. <br />regarding Pleasanton's position on <br />this question. <br />his is a matter that will be discuss <br />t the Valley Planning Committee leve <br />nsiderable discussion ensued. <br />he City Attorney stated that V. C. S . D, <br />id indicate that they were not going <br />o prejudice their ability to serve <br />roperties within their service area; <br />hat it may be worthwhile noting that <br />hey recently settled an agreement <br />roviding that the District will not <br />rovide anything more than the current <br />evel of service within Camp Parks <br />rea and cannot proceed to annex and <br />erve that area until after first <br />onsideration is given to areas al- <br />eady within the present service area, <br />mmissioner McLain then read a state <br />nt he prepared indicating oppositio <br />this possible annexation. He con- <br />uded by offering a motion for the <br />mmission to go on record as opposin <br />is annexation and have this directi <br />viewed by City Council. This motto <br />ed fcr lack of a second. <br />urther discussion ensued on this and <br />he Commissioners determined that the <br />ity Council will not take any action <br />r make any recommendation until the <br />eneral Plan review is completed. <br />-11- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.