My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN051600
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
CCMIN051600
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:32 AM
Creation date
6/9/2000 5:39:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/16/2000
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN051600
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
Mr. Pica reiterated the need to allow comments from the citizens of Pleasanton. <br /> <br /> Ms. Aeosta proposed the alternative of having staff submit continents to meet the <br />deadline and then obtain additional comments from Council to be submirted later. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta asked for clarification that Mr. Pica was requesting a hearing on the <br />EIR separate frown the City Council hearing on it. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pica I~lt it was appropriate to have a presentation on the Alameda County <br /> <br />plan. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver indicated agreement with that and then discussed the desire to have <br />a hearing in Pleasanton on the issue. IIe said it is a County plan, but Livermore feels it <br />has a major efl~ct on it and wanted a hearing. Pleasanton is just leec in the middle. He <br />wanted to ask the County to hold a County heating in Pleasanton, not a City Council <br />heating. He believed the purpose of a public hearing is to have a presentation to the <br />public of the information and then to take comments. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti indicated it is not as important for the Council to hear this as it is <br />for the County to hear it. She ageed with requesting an additional County hearing. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis inquired if there were two different deadlines fbr the public <br />comments: one for the Livermorn project and one for the Alameda County EIR review. <br /> <br />Ms. Acosta indicated she would inquire. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pica wanted to make certain Com~cil had an opportunity to review and <br />comment on the staff response to the EIR and for Pleasanton residents to have the <br />opportunity to make comments on the EIR to the County. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti believed each individual Councilmember can submit comments <br />individually. <br /> <br />Mr. Pica asked if the Council had received a copy of the EIR for review. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta replied that a memo had been sent to Council indicating a copy was <br />available at City Hall and a copy could be made ifa Coanoilmember requested it, <br /> <br /> Ms. Micholotli inquired about weed abatement along the fence along Bernal <br />Avenue. <br /> <br />Mayor Tarver asked if she was referring to the San Francisco property. <br /> <br />She said yes. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 21 05/16/00 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.