Laserfiche WebLink
17 <br /> <br /> timing on the traffic signal cycle could be established, access <br /> might be achieved. <br /> <br /> The developer requested that the matter not be continued and <br /> that direction be given to staff regarding the changes. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr inquired if the tentative map stands approved per the <br /> Planning Commission action, what is Council's most logical method <br /> of addressing the modifications. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated that if the Planning Commission decision <br /> is upheld, Council loses its options to change conditions. If <br /> Council'desires to change conditions, it is necessary to reconsider <br /> the previous action, rescind it and leave the matter open so there <br /> is not an approved tentative map, which is where Council is now by <br /> virtue of the tie vote. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver believed that if the prior motion was a tie, a <br /> subsequent motion should be valid to change conditions or continue <br /> the matter to the next meeting. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated it was a procedural point. A motion was <br />made to uphold the appeal. By that not passing, the action of the <br />Planning Commission stands. If Council wants to approve the <br />tentative map with different conditions, it is suggested that to <br />remove the potential cloud, that Council reconsider that action. <br />Mr. Roush's concern was that at this point, Kaufman and Broad has <br />a tentative map, as conditionally approved by the Planning <br />Commission, if Council does not rescind its previous action. <br /> <br /> Doug Aikens, with the law firm of Ware & Freidenrich in Palo <br />Alto, stated that if it would help remove some of the confusion, he <br />suggested approving the tentative map, with conditions to be <br />brought back to Council for approval. Kaufman and Broad would also <br />agree for Council to approve the tentative map with policy <br />direction to staff to work out the conditions you have raised. The <br />approval would be in effect as of now and the drafting of <br />conditions could be left to staff, and Kaufman and Broad is in <br />agreement with those policy directions so far. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr indicated that Kaufman and Broad could then proceed <br />with its engineering work so it can proceed with negotiations with <br />Mr. Irby, which can't be done now. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver appreciated the point, but expressed concern that <br />too often Council proceeds without having all the i's dotted and <br />the t's crossed, which creates problems. He preferred to take the <br />time necessary to make sure that everyone can provide their input <br />and come back with official action at the next meeting. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush requested further clarification on what Council <br />prefers regarding the eminent domain action required in Condition <br /> <br />1/5/93 17 <br /> <br /> <br />