My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN110474
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1970-1979
>
1974
>
CCMIN110474
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:47:49 AM
Creation date
11/17/1999 12:21:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br /> of <br /> THE MEETING <br /> of <br /> THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br /> November 4, 1974 <br /> <br />CALL TO ORDER <br /> Mayor Floyd Mori called the Special Meeting of the City Council to order at <br />8:00 P.M. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL <br /> Councilmen Herlihy, Kinney, Councilwoman LeCiaire, Councilman Philcox, and <br />Mayor Mori were present. Mr. Edgar, City Manager, Mr. Bowling, Director of Hous- <br />ing and Community Development, and Mr. Harris, Director of Planning, were present. <br />Mr. William Fraley, Alameda County Planning Department, was also present. <br /> <br />STUDY SESSION <br />Discusston~ Re: Las Positas New Town <br /> Mayor Mori introduced the discussion item related to the Las Positas New Town <br />and commented that it was the Council's intention to elicit as many facts as <br />possible prior to making a decision. He pointed out that the City Council had <br />previously made a decision regarding this matter. However, the previous decision <br />only pertained to the matter that was before the Local Agency Formation Commis- <br />sion. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mori then asked Mr. Fraley to summarize the facts regarding the Las <br />Positas New Town for the City Council. <br /> <br /> At this point Mr. Fraley brief the Council on the proposed New Town and <br />specifically reviewed the population projections, the general land use that is <br />planned for the area, circulation pattern, and the development schedule. Mr. <br />Fraley also reviewed the various issues that had previously been discussed at <br />the public hearings, such as sufficient water for the development, whether or <br />not the development would result in further deterioration of air quality, and <br />whether the existing school system was capable of accommodating a development <br />of this magnitude. He also reviewed the procedure which the County is requir- <br />ing the application to be processed. This procedure involves a review by the <br />Board of Supervisors of the General Plan amendment and subsequent approval or <br />disapproval. In addition, Mr. Fraley stated that there would be a specific <br />plan prepared on the proposal that would also be required to be processed through <br />the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Finally, Mr. Fraley <br />pointed out that a Planned Unit Development application would also be submitted <br />and be reviewed and acted upon by the Planning Commission and the Board of <br />Supervisors. <br /> <br /> At this point comments were made from the City Council and questions were <br />asked regarding specific concerns which the Council had regarding the applica- <br />tion. <br /> <br /> Councilman Dale Turner, from Livermore, made a presentation which is as <br />follows: "In the final analysis it does not appear, in the spirit of the best <br />interest for existing residents of Livermore and the Valley, that New Town <br />would be beneficial to our economic position at this time. I am confident <br />that if the planned development of this area was allowed to be completed <br />according to Livermore's General Plan it would come to pass in an orderly <br />manner. To remove factors of influence in areas that directly affect a given <br />city's most basic services, such as schools and parks, is a dangerous pre- <br />cedent that could inhibit that city's ability to future plan the common goals, <br />needs and wishes of existing citizens. New Town, in its present configuration, <br />does not meet the standards to be self-supporting. Not even in the remotest <br />sense could the title "New Town", as I visualize it, be associated with the <br />proposed residential development". <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.