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
The 150 unit cap would preclude reviewing a plan over 150 units, even though it might be a <br />better plan. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Dennis, seconded by Mr. Tarver, to modify the language to <br />say "The specific plan should include a target of 150 housing units." <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr felt that even a loose definition as stated would still drive the Specific Plan <br />rather than having the Specific Plan set the best number of units. She also wanted to include <br />orchards in the area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico said agriculture is specified which includes a whole range of things. The other <br />comments are possible uses to be considered. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti referred to a comment that said there were 100 + units allowed before the <br />"S" curve which leaves 45 for the rest. It was clarified that all density assignments are removed <br />when the area is placed in a study area. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis preferred to see a proposal and react to it rather than prejudice the <br />application with a set number of units. She felt Council would know when it hit the target. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr felt that should be a direction to staff rather than formal language. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti could not support the motion because she preferred to see all the studies <br />done and alternatives considered. <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Dennis, Pico, and Mayor Tarver <br />NOES: Councilmembers Michelotti and Mohr <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Mohr, seconded by Ms. Michelottl, to adjust the Vineyard <br />Corridor boundaries to be consistent with the South Livemore Valley Plan. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis felt Council would then have to accept the General Plan Steering <br />Committee's recommendation for densities on those properties. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti referred to a letter received from Mr. McGuire indicating the desire to <br />have those properties separated from the Specific Plan. <br /> <br />07/15/96 <br /> - 24 - <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.