My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN030369
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1960-1969
>
1969
>
CCMIN030369
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:46:41 AM
Creation date
11/19/1999 11:55:04 PM
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.
/
5
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 /> Pleasanton, California <br /> March 3, 1969 <br /> <br />CALL TO ORDER - PLEDGE..TO FLAG <br /> Mayor Bernard Getton called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M., and then led <br />the pledge of allegiance to the flag. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL <br /> City Clerk Helen McCarty called the roll which is recorded as follows: <br />Councilmen Beratlis, Reid, Spiliotopoulos and Mayor Getton were present. Council- <br />man Rega was absent. Mr. Fales, City Manager, Mr. Edgar, Assistant City Manager, <br />bit. Hirst, City Attorney, Mr. Campbell, Director of Public Works, and Mr. Aiello, <br />Assistant Director of Planning, were present. Mr. Castro, Director of Planning, <br />was absent. <br /> <br />AGENDA AMENDMENTS <br /> There were no amendments to the agenda. <br /> <br />CONSENT CALENDAR <br /> It was moved by Councilman Spiliotopoulos and seconded by Councilman Beratlis <br />that the following item on the Consent Calendar be approved: <br /> <br />1. Adoption of Resolution No. 69-45, authorizing that Progress Payment No. 5, <br /> in the amount of $53,813.61, be paid James Engineering Company for con- <br /> struction work completed on the HUD Water Main Project. <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmen Beratlis, Reid, Spiliotopoulos and Mayor Getton <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: Councilman Rega <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARINGS <br /> There were no public hearings scheduled for this meeting. <br /> <br />PATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION <br />A_.p/l~l of the Pentecostal Church of God~ P. O.. Box 39.~ Plea~anton,...from an ~dverse <br />decision of the Plannin8 Commission in ~eny.~g.a Conditional Use Permit in order to <br />allow the construction of a church in an R-1 District on tha~.prOpe_rty known as <br />431Neal Street~ ~gnta!nin~ approximatelv 1.49 acres <br /> Mr. Fales reported that the City Council held and closed the public hearing on <br />this appeal on February 10, 1969, and then continued this matter for a decision in <br />order to permit the applicant to determine the feasibility of developing the church <br />around the southwest corner of Hopyard Road and Las Positas Boulevard or on any <br />other property zoned for church sites. Mr. Fales also reported that the City <br />Council had requested that Planning Commission advise the Council regarding any <br />conditions which the Commission would attach to the Use Permit in the event it is <br />granted. <br /> Mr. Fales stated that he is in receipt of a petition signed by some 117 resi- <br />dents requesting that the City Council deny a Conditional Use Permit to the Pente- <br />costal Church because of the traffic problem on Neal Street, the noise factor in <br />a residential area, the parking problem and also of the precedence it will set for <br />other institutions desirous of using old homes. <br /> Nr. Fales also read a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Ronald Sandberg, requesting that <br />the appeal be denied. <br /> Mr. Fales read the report of the P~anning Commission, dated February 27, 1969, <br />in which six conditions are listed, that would be imposed upon the applicant should <br />the appeal be granted. These conditions were in regard to landscaping, both visual <br />and audio buffering, parking, sound proofing the existing structure and the non- <br />transferable permit. Mr. Fales also reviewed the report of the Director of Public <br />Works, dated February 24, 1969, in which he stated that this type of development <br />should be located on a major arterial that is planned to carry high volumes of <br />traffic and also that the subject building would have to be brought up to current <br />building codes prior to it being occupied. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.