My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
12/10/69
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1960-1969
>
1969
>
12/10/69
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/3/2017 9:41:45 AM
Creation date
7/9/2007 4:27:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
12/10/1969
DOCUMENT NAME
12/10/69
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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~b8ANrOy <br />.- <br />~--~ <br />CITY of PLEASANTON <br />Planning Commission <br />MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />DGte : December 10, 1969 <br />Time : 8:os PM <br />Place: Pleasanton Justice Court <br />Public Hearictg was <br />irman. <br />Commissioner Pereira referred to Sec.28.107 <br />of Zoning Ordinance No. 520, which states in <br />part that the Commission can recommend the <br />application be granted, granted in modified <br />form, or denied, or that the proposal be <br />adopted, adopted in modified form, or reject <br />Commissioner Pereira made reference to the <br />fact that the application had been denied <br />and should not be applied for again for at <br />least one year. The Planning Director clari <br />fied this matter to the Commission, that the <br />City Council had acted on the appeal by the <br />applicant by dropping the public hearing on <br />the matter and at the request of the appli- <br />cant, had referred it back to the Planning <br />Commission. The Planning Director emphasize <br />that it was proper for the matter to be con- <br />sidered that evening. <br />Chairman Carrigan told the Commissioners tha <br />there were two questions to be resolved <br />that evening; 1) whether the Commission is <br />in favor of increased density in the Rosepoi <br />area; and 2) rendering a decision on the <br />specific application before them. <br />Mr. Herman Ruth, representing the applicant, <br />spoke in favor of the application. <br />There were several people who were in oppo- <br />sition to the application. These were: <br />Mr. Nat McCulley, 6565 Ia nsing Court. <br />A Mr. Payne, who read excerpts from an <br />article published in the Chronicle. This <br />gentleman felt that the Government should <br />undertake the task of providing housing for <br />the lower income groups. <br />- 3 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.