My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN061692
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN061692
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:02 AM
Creation date
10/28/1999 11:50:47 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.
/
22
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
86 <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Mohr, and seconded by Ms. Scribner that <br /> Resolution No. 92-123 be adopted, amending the General Plan from <br /> General Unlimited Industrial to Residential Low Density. <br /> <br /> The roll call vote was as follows: <br /> AYES: Councilmembers Mohr, Scribner, Tarver and Mayor Mercer <br /> NOES: None <br /> ABSENT: Councilmember Butler <br /> ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Mohr, and seconded by Ms. Scribner, that <br /> Ordinance No. 1565 be introduced, to be read by title only and <br /> waiving further reading thereof, approving 1) a development plan to <br /> construct a total of 29 residential dwelling units on an 18.6 acre <br /> site located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Sunol <br /> Boulevard and 1-680; and 2) a rezoning to the PUD (Planned Unit <br /> Development) - Low Density Residential District. <br /> <br /> The roll call vote was as follows: <br /> AYES: Councilmembers Mohr, Scribner, Tarver and Mayor Mercer <br /> NOES: None <br /> ABSENT: Councilmember Butler <br /> ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> With respect to item 6a2 (Growth Management), Ms. Scribner <br /> stated that this project went through a number of redesigns which <br /> was appropriate for the project. The project was to be complete by <br /> April 1992 and it was not. She was not opposed to the project but <br /> felt that the ordinance should be followed. She feared that if an <br /> exception was made, other projects would come in prior to theApril <br /> deadline in any form and expect Growth Management at a later time. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver agreed with Ms. Scribner's comments. He believed <br /> that the end product of this project was excellent but should have <br /> been started a long time before. He did not feel that it would be <br /> appropriate to make an exception to the Ordinance for this project. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr felt that it did not make much difference whether the <br /> project was considered for the 1993 or 1994 growth management. She <br /> felt that the technical side was of less concern than making sure <br /> that the Council gets the types of projects that it wants for the <br /> City. She was initially undecided whether this project should be <br /> considered. She was sure that the neighbors wanted this project to <br /> be processed and therefore she supported allowing the project to be <br /> considered in the 1993 growth management process. She added that <br /> because there are more applicants' applying than there are units, <br /> the project may or may not get growth management approval. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer stated that the growth management period had <br /> already been extended so this would not be a significant change to <br /> the Ordinance. He believed growth management was extended for this <br /> project so that applicant could work more with the neighbors to <br /> <br /> 6/16/92 8 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.