My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN050791
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
CCMIN050791
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:13 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 10:32:58 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.
/
24
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
167 <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that his understand was that the Bonde <br />Project would be eligible for Growth Management approval if it were <br />approved at the Council's first meeting in May. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer commented that it was his understanding that Growth <br />Management approval for the Bonde Project would be extended until <br />Council made a decision on the project. He stated that the <br />application was continued because Mr. Butler is absent. He <br />inquired what would happen to the Bonde Project in terms of Growth <br />Management approval if the ordinance were adopted at this meeting, <br />or if there is a tie vote. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that the existing ordinance would apply, <br />which sets the deadline to the first meeting in April. He added <br />that a tie vote would continue the item to the May 21st meeting. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr commented that when Council was responding to the <br />residents' concerns about the Bonde Project at the April 2nd <br />Council meeting, she made a statement that she was in favor of <br />giving the residents the opportunity to work with the developers <br />and continue the application insofar as the extension would not <br />mean Growth Management delay for a full year. She added that it <br />was her understanding that most of the differences have been <br />resolved, and the reason the project is being continued to the May <br />21st meeting is the absence of a full Council, for which the <br />developer should not be penalized. She proposed that the ordinance <br />be continued to the May 21st meeting because even if the ordinance <br />were approved at this meeting, the ordinance would have to be <br />amended to accommodate the Bonde Project, if the project is <br />approved on May 21st. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Mohr, and seconded by Mr. Mercer, that <br />Item 10a - Ordinance No. 1505, Amendment to the Pleasanton <br />Municipal Code Concerning the Application Procedure for Growth <br />Management Approval, be continued to the May 21, 1991 City Council <br />Meeting. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Mohr, Scribner and Mayor Mercer <br />NOES: Councilmember Tarver <br />ABSENT: Councilmember Butler <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> - 15 - <br /> 5-7-91 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.