My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN010290
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
CCMIN010290
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:34 AM
Creation date
11/3/1999 10:08:19 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.
/
17
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
29 <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer stated that he did not have a problem with that <br />suggestion. He just does not want City staff to spend an <br />inordinate amount of time working with developers and speculators <br />on properties down Vineyard Avenue until the City decides what to <br />do in the area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated that Council could direct the staff not <br />to process annexation requests in the area until the report is <br />done. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer requested Mr. Swift to find out when the Fertile <br />Crescent study would be done and inform Council how much time <br />staff would need to do the Vineyard Avenue study, get it to the <br />Planning Commission and back to Council. <br /> <br />9. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS <br /> <br /> There were no City Council Committee reports presented at <br />this meeting. <br /> <br />10. MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION <br />Item 10a <br />Ordinance No. 1445, Approvinq the Application of the City of <br />Pleasanton for a Major Modification as Described Under <br />Case PUD-85-21-5M <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler commented that it is unfortunate that the <br />newspaper reviews on the matter overlooked the fact that the <br />ordinance basically accomplished everything that adjacent property <br />owners asked for, with the exception of mandating ahead of time a <br />specific kind of house design. He indicated that he would support <br />the adoption of the ordinance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that he could not agree with Mr. Butler's <br />comment because Council did not address what some people who spoke <br />at meeting said regarding two-story and single-story units and the <br />density of the lots. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes pointed out that one of the conditions of the <br />ordinance was that all the people who expressed concern about the <br />development would be notified of the design review hearing date <br />for the units to be built on the two lots in question. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Brandes, and seconded by Mr. Butler, that <br />Ordinance No. 1445 be adopted, approving the application of the <br />City of Pleasanton for a major modification as described under <br />Case PUD-85-21-5M. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Butler and Mayor Mercer <br />NOES: Councilmembers Mohr and Tarver <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> -15- <br /> 1-2 -90 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.