Laserfiche WebLink
133 <br /> <br /> Item 6a <br /> 1992 Growth Manaaement Report (SR92:282) <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing open on the <br />application. <br /> <br /> Becky Dennis, 838 Grey Fox Circle, referred to the staff <br />report, Table 3, and asked if the 2600 units listed were to be <br />removed and not included. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that those units should have been removed and <br />were not going to be included. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler commented that this was going to be a year that <br />they would need to make close evaluations or referrals. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer did not believe that this matter would be ready <br />by July 21, 1992. He suggesting placing this on the 8/4/92 City <br />Council agenda. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler agreed. <br /> <br /> There being no testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the public <br />hearing closed. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Mohr, and seconded by Mr. Butler, Option <br />5, providing for maximum flexibility to the number of units to be <br />approved for growth management. <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Mohr, Scribner and Mayor Mercer <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: Councilmember Tarver <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer appointed himself and Mr. Butler to be the <br />Committee to review the projects. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer believed that the Ruby Hill development should <br />not be included in this process. He explained that this particular <br />project would not be sewered through the City of Livermore. The <br />schools would not be funded by the City of Pleasanton. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr agreed. She commented that she was not sure that <br />these types of projects such as Ruby Hill could be eliminated from <br />this process for this year but felt that perhaps they could next <br />year. <br /> <br /> This item was continued to the 8/4/92 City Council meeting. <br /> <br />7/7/92 15 <br /> <br /> <br />