My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN010792
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN010792
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:03 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 9:58:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br /> OF <br /> THE <br /> MEETING <br /> OF <br /> THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br /> January 7, 1992 <br /> <br /> CALL'TO ORDER <br /> <br /> Mayor Kenneth R. Mercer called the Regular Meeting of the City <br /> Council to order at 7:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> 2. RoLL <br /> <br /> City Clerk Peggy L~ Ezidro called the roll, which is recorded <br />as follows: Councilmembers Robert E. Butler, Karin Mohr, Dorothy <br />N. Scribner, Ben Tarver, and Mayor Kenneth R. Mercer. Staff <br />members present were: Deborah Acosta, City Manager; Michael H. <br />Roush, City Attorney; Brian W. Swift, Director of Planning and <br />Community Development; Joseph Elliott, Director of Public Works and <br />Utilities; George Withers, Fire Chief; and Dolores Bengtson, <br />Director of Parks and Community Services. <br /> <br />$. AGENDAAMENDMENTS <br /> Item 6g was continued to 1/21/92 <br /> <br />4, CONSENT CALENDAR <br /> <br /> Robert Pearson, 262 W. Angela, spoke in opposition to items 4c <br />and 4d. He indicated that he and others had been circulating a <br />petition to challenge the General Plan change. He was not sure <br />whether they would be able to obtain enough signatures because of <br />the time of year (holidays). He stated that if they did not obtain <br />enough signatures, they wouldthen challenge the zoning change. He <br />felt this action was in contrast to the General Plan which has <br />always been that 25% of the City's residential units would be <br />multiple units and would be disbursed throughout the City. The <br />number of units built in North Pleasanton, around this particular <br />site, is approximately 29,000 projected building units. Just in <br />this one area there would be between 25-40% of those multiple <br />units. This is not disbursing the multiple units throughout the <br />community. Mr. Pearson indicated he would not challenge the <br />project with legal action due to the expense. He believed the <br />assessment bonds preclude this project from being a viable <br />residential project. He asked what would happen when improvements <br />need to be made on the intersections due to the high traffic caused <br />by these units. <br /> <br /> 1/7/92 <br /> 1 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.