My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN100311SP
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
CCMIN100311SP
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/9/2012 3:50:07 PM
Creation date
3/9/2012 3:50:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/3/2011
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN100311SP
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
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 /> CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> October 3, 2011 <br /> 1. CALL TO ORDER <br /> Mayor Hosterman called the special meeting to order at the hour of 7:00 p.m. <br /> 2. ROLL CALL <br /> Present: Councilmembers, McGovern, Sullivan, Thorne, Mayor Hosterman, and Cook-Kallio via <br /> teleconference from Georgetown Hotel & Conference Center, 1 Leavey Center, <br /> Washington DC <br /> Absent: None <br /> City Attorney Lowell said a proposal was received from legal counsel for the property owners in <br /> the two pending lawsuits against the City regarding the Oak Grove development. The City Council <br /> discussed the proposal with its legal counsel in closed session and on September 26 directed that <br /> a public meeting be held October 3 in order to advise the public of the key principles of the <br /> proposal and to obtain public input before the City Council makes a decision. The proposal was to <br /> put on hold (or stand down from) the two pending litigation matters while the property owners' <br /> currently pending application for a ten home project on the same site proceeds through the City's <br /> regular planning process. However, on September 28, the City was advised by counsel for the <br /> property owners that the proposal was withdrawn. Therefore, there are no principles of a proposal <br /> to share with the public at this time. <br /> He noted that City staff continues to process the current ten lot project, and such application will <br /> go through the City's normal development and environmental review processes. There will be <br /> noticed public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council at which members <br /> of the public can comment. <br /> 3. PUBLIC COMMENT: Alan Roberts, Karla Brown, and Kay Ayala addressed the council <br /> concerning the existing litigation. <br /> 4. CONSIDER A PROPOSAL FOR A STAND DOWN OF LITIGATION ARISING FROM THE <br /> PRIOR 51 UNIT OAK GROVE PROJECT DURING REVIEW OF NEW APPLICATION FOR 10 <br /> LOTS ON THE OAK GROVE PROPERTY <br /> The meeting adjourned to closed session at 7:35 p.m. <br /> 5. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSE: CONFERENCE WITH <br /> LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION per Government Code §54956.9(a): <br /> (a) Lin v. City of Pleasanton, State of California, First Appellate District Court of Appeal A132046 <br /> of Alameda County, Case No. RG-10-519153 <br /> (b) Lin v. City of Pleasanton, Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG-11-591651 <br /> The meeting reconvened in open session at 8:54 p.m., with Councilmember Cook-Kallio absent. City <br /> Attorney Lowell stated that no reportable action was taken in closed session. <br /> 6. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the special meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. <br /> Respe tfully s omitted, <br /> Kare Diaz <br /> City Clerk <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.