My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
12/08/55
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1950-1959
>
1955
>
12/08/55
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/17/2013 12:20:04 PM
Creation date
7/9/2007 3:46:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
12/8/1955
DOCUMENT NAME
12/08/55
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 />IN THB PLANNING COMMI83ION 08 THS CITY O! PLBASANTON <br />COUNTY OF ALAMBDA, STATE OB CALITORNIA <br /> <br />A special meeting of the Planning Commission of the <br />City of 3"~i~aeantoit xas held at Citp Hall at 8600 P, K. on. <br />December Bth, 1933. Th• weting was caked by Chairma++ Drlof! <br />and notioe was duly given by mail. <br />Absent xas Chairman Orloff and Commissioner Garibaldi. <br />Mrs, Marine Hsotor of the City Council xas present, as xeil as <br />Charles Psatana, City Engineer, <br />1Pith 91ce Chairman Brenner presiding, the minutes <br />xers approved. <br />Map of Tract lip (Parkviex) xas studied b7 the <br />oomwission, At the request of the oommission, City Engineer <br />Charles Peatana mad• his report. After discussion on motion of <br />Commissioner Hexltson, seconded by Commissioner Nevis, the <br />folloxing recommendation xsa adoptsds <br />(a) Me recommend to the City Council that the tentative <br />map for tract 171 (Parkviex) be disapproved and that the County <br />Planning Commission bs so informed, <br />(b) Our disapproval and this ezprsssion against the <br />proposed development is based upon these reaaonsi <br />1) It is not good planning to d svelop that particular <br />land for residential purposes, since there are other <br />uses xhioh xould benefit the City of Pleasanton more. <br />2) Pleasanton should not serve any area with aexer or <br />xater unless it is first brought into the City Limits, <br />and here the land is such a great distance from the <br />City Limits, and the coat of municipal services so <br />great oosepsred to the income •scpected, that annexation <br />is impractioel and not desirable„ <br />3) Aside from the above planning considerations, there <br />is no engineering data ahoxing a feasible sexerage <br />apatem, <br />k) Aside from the planning oonaiderationa, aexer an4 <br />other improveaenta should be controlled by the -pity and <br />wl~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.