My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 10/19/67
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1960-1969
>
1967
>
PC 10/19/67
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/24/2013 3:14:22 PM
Creation date
7/5/2007 10:12:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/19/1967
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 10/19/67
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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
<br />M I N U T E S <br />of <br />planning Commission <br />Pleasanton, California <br />October 19, 1967 <br />The regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order <br />at 8:00 P.M.,Yhursday, October 19, 1967, by Chairman Antonini. <br />ROIL CALL showed the following: <br />Present: Commissioner Arnold <br />Gibbs <br />Plato <br />Chairman Antonini <br />Secretarq Castro <br />Absent: Co®iaeioner Carrigan <br />Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbs, seconded by Co®isaioner Arnold, and carried, <br />the minutes of October 11, 1967, were ,approved ae presented. <br />Chairman Antonini informed the Commission and the audience that a time limit <br />of five minutes per person would be imposed upon asryone wishing to speak relative <br />to any section of this Proposed Ordinance. Chairman Antonini further .stated <br />that anyone speaking should refer to the section and page number when speaking. <br />4a. RZ-67-11 PLannins Cos®ission. <br />Chairman Antonini re-opened the public hearing which was continued from September <br />13, 1967. The Commission considered the commenta•from Mr. Ted Pairfield of <br />MacKay and Somps, as the appropriate sections were discussed. <br />Section 1.105.5c - remained .unchanged. <br />Section 1.105.9c - remained unchanged. <br />Section 1.105.16c - remained unchanged. <br />/Section 1.106 - remained unchanged. <br />/ Section 1.105.14a - remained unchanged. <br />Section 11.102 - S. Study District - Obtain interpretation from City Attorney <br />relative to wording of last sentence only. Suggested change: or to <br />revert to its former zoning classification one year after the effective date. <br />A new ordinance continuing . <br />Section 2.lOl.lc - remained unchanged. <br />Section 2.101.2 - remained unchanged. <br />Section 2.101.3 - remained unchanged. <br />Section 2,104.4 - remained unchanged <br />Section 2.112 - remained unchanged. <br />Article 3 - remained unchanged. <br />Section 4.100f - remained unchanged. <br />Section 4.103h - remained unchanged. <br />Section 12 - There was considerable discussion relative to ROD and whether or <br />not it presented a double standard. Discussion also ensued on the particular <br />mechanics of the ROD and how it applies to both the old Zoning Ordinance and <br />the new Proposed Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Gene Rega was present in the audience <br />and briefly reiterated the original intent of the ROD Ordinance. Dr. Howard <br />Long was also present in the audience and complimented the Commission on their <br />emphasis to present a clear cut guideline to follow. <br />Section 13.102 - Question was raised as to definition of "single ownership. <br />Mr. Castro suggested that Chia question be referenced under Section 1.105.13d, <br />for clarification. <br />10-19-67 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.