My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN050995
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCMIN050995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:54:18 AM
Creation date
5/20/1999 11:14:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
Mayor Tarver felt that getting enough information to make the right decision is the issue. <br /> When the General Plan Update is finished, then we have to accept and process the application. <br /> Right now we're being asked to make an exception to the previously adopted policy of the <br /> Council not to process the General Plan amendments until after the General Plan Review <br /> process. He felt he couldn't do that until he had the forum and at that time he might consider <br /> the application. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti stated that it might be October and then it would be a moot point. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis stated that the poll of the neighborhood which the developer is willing to do <br /> is a piece of information that has never been seen before; she felt it is a necessary piece of <br /> information. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver is not restricting what information is brought to the meetings; the <br /> developer is welcome to do a poll or show plans to the community. At this point the Council's <br /> decision is whether to proceed with the General Plan amendment. He felt that he needed <br /> community input, information from the State Superintendent's office, and information from the <br /> developer in order to feel comfortable. He stated he could not put a time frame on the issue; <br /> but he is committed to do the process as quickly as possible. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked if the process is to let everyone hear the same thing at one time and <br /> if that process is intended to overturn or get the School Board to change its opinion as far as <br />-- whether that site will be a school site. She won't vote to do that since the School Board made <br /> the decision but she's in favor of a clarification before proceeding. She felt that the School <br /> District has an opportunity on the table but we're holding up its opportunity and it might not <br /> come again. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr thought the process was too open-ended and felt the process could take longer <br /> than the General Plan process has taken. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked if the process can be continued for 30 days or 60 days. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver hoped to get the information as soon possible but there are no guarantees. <br /> It will be a joint workshop between the City Council and the School Board if the Board will <br /> participate. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver made a motion, seconded by Mr. Pico, that the applicant's request to <br /> process a general plan amendment for the Del Prado property independent of the general plan <br /> update process be deferred until there is one or more meetings between the City, the School <br /> Board, the State Superintendent's office, parent teacher organizations, Del Prado neighborhood <br /> residents, the developer and the development community, and the community in general to <br /> discuss procedures relative to surplus school property, financing new schools, what could be <br /> built on the site, what parents want at a particular school, and the City's planning and land use <br /> procedures for the site. <br /> <br /> 05/09/95 -12- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.