My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN020591
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
CCMIN020591
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:13 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 11:13:18 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.
/
6
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
31 <br /> <br /> j. Acceptance of public improvements for Tract 5797, <br /> Rosepark - Standard Pacific, a 4.69± acre single-family <br /> residential subdivision located on Mohr Avenue south of <br /> Kamp Drive. (SR 91:45) <br /> <br /> k. Acceptance of the Quarterly Claims/Litigation Report for <br /> the period October 1, 1990 to December 31, 1990. <br /> (IR 91:04) <br /> <br /> 1. Adoption of Resolution No. 91-18, authorizing the <br /> settlement of Thonak v, City of Pleasanton. (SR 91:40) <br /> <br />The roll cal~ vote.was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Mohr, Scribner, Tarver and Mayor <br /> Mercer- <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />5. MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC <br /> <br /> Mr. James Zuchelli, a Pleasanton resident, indicated thathe <br />was opposed to Bay Vision 2020, a group that seeks to organize a <br />regional government planning body to be composed of appointed <br />members for the purpose of advising and controlling the cities.and <br />counties in the Bay Area. He requested Council not to endorse the <br />group. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer stated that the different regions in the State of'I <br />California would be represented in the membership of Bay. Vision <br />2020 with regard to decisions on regional issues. However, Bay <br />Vision 2020 would have the power to approve or deny any proposal in <br />any Bay Area city, regardless of that city's decision on the <br />matter. Additionally, Bay Vision 2020 would not address the issue <br />of the electorate because it does not allow public or elected <br />representatives participation in the process. The body would be' <br />higher than the State-elected officials in the area and would not <br />be accountable to the public. He indicated that the Council should <br />take a position on the matter at the next Council meeting. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver cited the lack of public input at the Bay Vision <br />2020 meetings due to lack of public notices and stated that he <br />would like to hear additional comments and input from members of <br />the community regarding the matter. <br /> <br /> - 3 - <br /> 2-5-91 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.