My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN071596
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
CCMIN071596
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:45 AM
Creation date
5/13/1999 10:42:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/15/1996
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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. Swift indicated that if the decisions on July 9 are deferred, then there will be nothing <br />for an attorney to look at, because he would not know what Council's action will be. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Michelotti, seconded by Ms. Mohr, to delete "The specific plan <br />should hdude a target of no more than 150 housing units." <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr indicated there are several little parcels in the area of the 'S ' curve which are <br />not controversial and should not be included in the balance of the Corridor. They should stay <br />in the district for reimbursement purposes, but should be taken out of this proposed specific <br />plan. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti did not want to include that as part of her motion. <br /> <br />The r011 Call v0t~ was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Michelotti and Mohr <br />NOES: Councilmembers Dennis, Pico, and Mayor Tarver <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> The motion failed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver referred to the land use map attached to the report and felt the motion to set <br />a 150 unit cap was as a result of the discussions of expectations of development. He felt 150 <br />units reflected the concept of what was expected for the area and still maintained the guidelines <br />including scenic road entry, preserving substantial open space, planting vineyards and <br />maintaining a wine country architecture and landscaping design. He is still uncomfortable saying <br />no more than 'X" number of units because there is no plan to look at. Staff should not have <br />to review a plan for 480 units when it will not meet the guidelines. He had hoped that by <br />including the designation of land use on the map and setting acreage that there would be <br />established an approximate range to apply to any potential plan. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis felt if specific acreage was assigned to uses, it would constrain development <br />of the specific plan. You need to look at the relationship of the different uses and the ability <br />to provide infrastructure, etc. before that determination could be made. The 150 units is a <br />component of the specific plan in addition to all the other uses. She suggested saying a 'target' <br />of 150 units. She felt there was community discomfort with the higher end of the range for <br />units that is desired by the property owners. She was prepared to accept the Steering Committee <br />number generated by its suggested land use and then add some other types of uses. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarvet preferred that, because when the plan is developed it is clear the desire is to <br />have about that number of units and still have scenic road, etc. As with every development <br />plan, if there is something especially attractive or beneficial, it will be taken into consideration. <br /> <br />07/15/96 <br /> - 23 - <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.