My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN020982
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1982
>
CCMIN020982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:52:10 AM
Creation date
11/10/1999 12:46:36 AM
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.
/
18
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
237 <br /> <br /> It was moved by Councilmember Mohr, and seconded by Councilmember Kephart, that <br />Ordinance No. 1019, approving the application of Mutual Land Company to prezone an <br />approximately 48 acre parcel located at the eastern terminus of Crellin Road to the <br />P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) Low Density Residential/Open Space District with <br />approximately 9 acres as Low Density Residential and the remaining approximately 39 <br />acres as Open Space (Public Health and Safety), be adopted. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Kephart, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Mercer <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br /> <br />Adoption of Ordinance No. 1020~ amendin~ Chapter 14 (Flood Damage Prevention) of <br />Title II of the Ordinance Code of the City of Pleasanton <br />(Intro. 1~26-82~ 4-Ayes~ 1-Absent) <br /> Mayor Mercer stated that Ordinance No. 1020 was introduced on January 26, 1982, <br />by a vote of 4-Ayes, 1-Absent, and that it was now in order to adopt the ordinance. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Councilmember Kephart, and seconded by Councilmember Butler, that <br />Ordinance No. 1020, amending Chapter 14 (Flood Damage Prevention) of Title II of the <br />Ordinance Code of the City of Pleasanton, be adopted. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Kephart, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Mercer <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None .." <br /> <br />Application of Richard and Ursula Ultsch and Theodore Bates for prezoning and develop- <br />ment.plan approval for a 256 dwelling unit project on an approximately 29 acre site <br />located on the north side of VineFard Avenue opposite Sauterne Way. The propert7 is <br />currently prezoned PUD (Planned Unit Developmen~)-Medium Density Residential District <br />with certain conditions governing its development. The City CounCil may recommend <br />approval of new prezoning and the proposed developmenT plan or make any other recom- <br />mendations regarding the sub3ect property consistent with the General Plan <br />(Public Hearin~ Closed - continued from 1-26-82) <br /> Mayor Mercer stated this item was continued from the meeting of January 26, 1982, <br />for full Council attendance. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Kephart stated he had previously abstained from participation on <br />this item because his former employer had at one time considered development of this <br />property. He stated he was no longer associated with his former employer, and had <br />no association now nor had he ever had with the present developer, therefore, he <br />intended to vote on this item. The City Attorney advised the original reason for <br />Councilmember Kephart's abstention no longer existed, therefore, there would be no <br />Conflict of Interest and Councilmember Kephart could take part on the decision. <br /> <br /> Council discussion ensued on whether or not to reopen the public hearing, which <br />was declared closed at the meeting of January 26, 1982. It was moved by Council- <br />member Butler, and seconded by Councilmember Wood, to reopen the public hearing on <br />this item. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Kephart, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Mercer <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br /> <br /> Mrs. Nancy Storch, 3193 Chardonnay, stated she strongly opposed the reopening <br />of the public hearing. She stated that Council clearly stated their intent at the <br />last meeting not to reopen the public hearing at this meeting, and that several <br />interested residents did not attend because they would not have any further opportunity <br />for input into the testimony. <br /> <br /> 15. 2/9/82 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.