Laserfiche WebLink
Item 7c <br />PUD-ST-4-4M, Matresort Investment Company, Application for a Minor <br />Modification to PUD-87-4 (Canyon Meadows) Development to Allow the <br />Installation of a Six-Foot Redwood Fence Topped by a Twelve-Inch <br />Lattice on the Easterl~ Property Line Located at 7501 Canyon Meadow <br />Circle <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift presented his report (IR 90:68) regarding the <br />matter. <br /> <br /> No action was required or taken by the Council on this item. <br /> <br />8. MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCILMEMBERS <br /> <br />Vineyard Avenue Stud~ <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr requested Council to consider having staff start the <br />Vineyard Avenue Study, which was put off until the Fertile Crescent <br />Study is completed. She stated that projects like the McDowells' <br />are relevant to the Vineyard Avenue realignment and that the <br />Fertile Crescent Study will take come time to complete. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes stated that when Council first considered the <br />McDowell application, Council decided not to consider any projects <br />in the Fertile Crescent Study area until that Study was completed, <br />and asked staff to make some preliminary investigations regarding <br />property owners interested in annexing to Pleasanton. He added <br />that he did not disagree with Ms. Mohr but that he did not perceive <br />any urgency to complete the Vineyard Avenue Study and preferred to <br />wait for the results of the Fertile Crescent Study. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer agreed with Mr. Brandes. He noted that the Council <br />had decided that the McDowell project could be built without the <br />realignment of Vineyard Avenue. He added that the only request for <br />annexation in the area had come from the Hines, who do not intend <br />to develop their property at this time but who want to be under <br />Pleasanton's control rather than the County's. He indicated his <br />preference to have the Fertile Crescent Study completed before <br />having the staff do the Vineyard Avenue Study. <br /> <br />Ruby Hill Development <br /> <br /> FIr. Brandes requested that a letter be sent to each member of <br />the Alameda County Board of Supervisors expressing the Council's <br />disappointment at the action taken by the Alameda County Planning <br />Commission on the Ruby Hill Development and reiterating the <br />Council's viewpoint on the project and its concerns regarding the <br />sewer package plant. He recommended that the Mayor or one of the <br />Councilmembers attend the Board of Supervisors Meeting when the <br /> <br /> 10-2-90 <br /> - 24 - <br /> <br /> <br />