My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN090799
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
CCMIN090799
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:17 AM
Creation date
10/12/1999 5:23:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/7/1999
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. Roush said no action could be taken regarding Mr. McGuire without <br />reconsideration of the prior motion first. Reconsiderationmust occur at this meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Tarver did not support reconsideration. He had supported working on some <br />type of development agreement for any applications coming through in the normal process. <br />He still supports that, but did not want to reopen the entire process of development <br />agreements and who should have one. There are several applications to be heard before <br />November and the only ones that could be approved and set aside by the Initiative involve <br />the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan. If something is not done to protect the approvals in <br />that area prior to November, it reverts to Agriculture and we have to start all over again. <br />Council should process things as if the Initiative is not pending, because the vote has not <br />occurred. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked what would need to occur in order to get the Vineyard <br />Corridor properties to have vesting and be exempt from the effects of the Initiative? <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said what is necessary is a development agreement or an application for <br />a vesting tentative map would have to be complete. The property owners do not need <br />approval of the vesting map itself, only the completed application for one (and assuming <br />that the map is subsequently approved). It is questionable whether all the PUD's for the <br />Vineyard Corridor will be adopted in time for the applications for tentative maps to be <br />complete before November 2. It depends on when the applications are approved by the <br />Planning Commission and if and when the Council approves the applications. It is a timing <br />issue. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis believed the development agreement was a separate application and she <br />did not think it could be done unless applications were processed concurrently with the <br />other applications. Scheduling would be problematic. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico suggested moving Matters Initiated sooner on the agenda. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Michelotti, seconded by Ms. Ayala, to move Matters <br />Initiated to the next item on the agenda. <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers- Ayala, Dennis, Michelotti, and Pico <br />NOES: Mayor Tarver <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> There was a break at 8:52 p.m. <br /> <br /> The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 9 09/07/99 <br />Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.