|
59
<br />
<br />AmendnL~,nt ce t.l~.e ML,.;~z' ~-3di, v~Sion Ordinance telaLin~ to Waiver cf Filin~ of Minor
<br />Subdivision Ma ,
<br /> Mr Sche~dig presented his report ~egarding this matter s~ating thai s~aff is
<br />requesting theft C. oc, ncll adopt aa amendment 'co ~his min~r subdivision ordinance in
<br />order ~o a!l~.~w ~aiver of fi[.ing a parcel map where a land division is taking place
<br />sc. lel/~'cr il. pa~c~ng purposes.
<br />
<br /> It was ~uoved by Counc~lnmn H<~ri~ a~d seconded by Councilman Reid, that Ordi-
<br />na~e Nc,~ ?J2, to be read by title only and waiving further reading thereof. adding
<br />Se~.~ticn 2-3<~09 ~.o Artici~ 5 (Minor Subdivisions), Chapter 1 (Subdivisions), Title II
<br />(Zoning ~snd Development) of c. he Ordinance Code of the City of Pleasanton relating to
<br />the f~l i~g o~' par~_el maps, he inrroduce.d~
<br />The r~i>k~ ca!) v~t~ was a.~ fc,]lows:
<br />AYES: Councilmen Hert lhy, Kinney.~ Morl, Reid, and Mayor Pearson
<br />NO P.i S: No n e
<br />
<br /> ~x, ~'.~'x4~;~j~; :fee;anted his z'ep~3ft Fega~:jing this m~[~=~ stat!ng tha~ the City
<br />ha~s s~L~,,'~<~ .~ .:{~ia~ relatj. ng 'to di~a~3g6 tca driveway at 2974 Hilisboro Court,
<br />P.leas:-~r~ ~.<~ ~L ~'~ in :3rde. r f'ot the Coun. cl.] to deny this ciaim~
<br />
<br /> ~.~: was ~"~,~.<i by (:c~u~ ~i~n~:n 'Reid, add secoaded by Councilman Herlihy, to deny
<br />~ X a ~ m =; t =% ! I ~: ~:~ ~ e ! ~ ~ s u ~: a ~ c e C ~3 m p a n y a ~;~ d b c, n a I d D a ! e Bev a r d and 'r e f e r t h e mat t e r
<br />~ the City Att~:,rz~ey to~. handling.
<br />The ~>ll call vote was
<br />AYES: {i~o~Ic i ]men Herl ihy, Kinney, M;n: i ~ Reid, and Mayor Pearson
<br />NOES: N~
<br />ABSENT: ~h~,~u:~
<br />
<br />~orj:_~.~j:i2~.. U n__lnhab i
<br /> Mrs, Scheidig ~:eported that the California Supreme Court recently upheld the
<br />cons~itutiona)ity o~ the 0ninhabited Annexation Act of 1939 in Weber vs, City of
<br />Thousa~'~d Odk.~, ['~i S;t~eidig sta~ed thaz the legality ~ this Act was questioned
<br />by t.h.~ Distci,'.c Cce,:t of Appeals, but new Ehe right of cona~unities to annex
<br />uninhablred t:erri~:~r7 pursuant to the applicable Gover~ent Code Provisions has
<br />been st~s t.~.L.~.~d ~
<br />
<br />.~o_i~i~ Re~ General P!a~t Designations
<br /> Mr, S~heidig adv Lsed rhac the Calilornia S~preme Court unanimously confimed
<br />the z ight of comm~r~i~.'i..es ~:o adopt general piano showing future roads, parks, and
<br />open areas v;.~ ~hout s~x.,:h desig~at'ion being inverse condemnation~ In deciding
<br />Se!by *Js~ ~:he C2tty ~ Bueoaventura~ the Supreme Court relied upon the Walnut
<br />Creek ps~,'.and de.J],'.st ic~n c. sse~ which the City Council had vigorously supported
<br />thrJ~lgh the et %,:~t~ {~f the then City Attorney William Hirst.
<br />
<br />COMMUN [CAF ~'~ ~,
<br /> '?here w~re <...~ C~n~muni2at:lons presen~d a~ this meeting.
<br />
<br />CIIY COUN[.!~. C~)Nr,i/TTEE }iEPOR'I5
<br /> There wer~ ~.r> Ci~.V Co~nc~! Ccmmfitcee Repo~=~s presented at :his meeting,
<br />
<br />~Ig 17i'E1;3 i.N i 1. ~ATED BY COUNt. iL M~3IBERS
<br />
<br /> C. ouncj hx>ar~ He~' lihy 'cequest'ed an analysis of enecgy~ bogh electrical and
<br />fos.=,;i ~-, ~.,.! ~;s~ed D,.~ ibe C~lly~ -[li at~ attempt to red ace and conserve consumption.
<br />
<br /> C.~;:.:-,?~,,:~:~., E~.:, ::: i~ c~ .~ak~'~ the (;i. ty st:at~' Lo see it Conditional Use Peruits
<br />rut ~, s;~.=' ~,:"~:.~ .~,.~ be ~a~,,oked t~ gh~ sza~:/ons shut do~rn as part of gas-pricing
<br />i..z.,~ c:s~:., [{~. s~{-~ ~.d th~ deaiefT's bare a ~ight. ~o 9~>cesc, bu~ ~he public should
<br />ii3~.e:1 :~;ir, e :,~tf~g~l~"de against. the [rlconvenj.euce~
<br />
<br /> C~<mf: Lu:r~f.:, n,:ju etated that sometime ago [he Cloy took a posiUion supporting
<br />a proposa} *' , ~ }~ ;~ A. ppe:~::sc.~ t~.~ devetop pxope.cty in the Sunoi area He re-
<br />quested ;:i::,~{~ ~:~=~:.. b~ g't~.~.:~d c:n ~:he ~-~gend,5: i<v~ Oct?bet 8, 1973, in order to
<br />
<br /> 10/1/73
<br />
<br />
<br />
|