My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN082002
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
CCMIN082002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:35 AM
Creation date
9/25/2002 9:57:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/20/2002
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN082002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
PUD-98-16-2M, City of Pleasanton <br />Application for a minor modification to an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD- <br />98-16) to modify Condition No. 43 so that the PUD would be conditioned on the new <br />annexation application submitted by the City of Pleasanton to the Alameda County Local <br />Agency Formation Commission on 6/7/02. (IR 02:034) <br />No action was required or taken on this item. <br /> <br />Ms. Michelotfi asked for staffto briefly review this item. <br /> <br />Ms. McKeehan indicated the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission <br />(LAFCo) approved the Happy Valley annexation with a condition that the City of <br />Pleasanton not oppose the County in its review of alternatives to close Alisal at Happy <br />Valley Road. Staffhas not yet seen the final language of the condition. <br /> <br />Ms. Michelotti was concerned about making Happy Valley Road a cul-de-sac. <br /> <br />Mayor Pico indicated the request was made from Supervisor Scott Haggerty as an <br />amendment to the motion to approve the annexation. Supervisor Haggerty is considering <br />two or more options, one of whieh is to cul-de-sac Happy Valley at Alisal with an <br />emergency vehicle access point. The other option is to cul-de-sac the road with an <br />electronic gate to be operated by some of the residents. There was concern from a <br />number of residents on Alisal and the Supervisor wanted some flexibility to be able to <br />continue to discuss these items with his constituents. <br /> <br />Ms. Michelotti asked if that issue would go before the Alameda County Board of <br />Supervisors for decision. <br /> <br />Mayor Pico said he thought that the Supervisor for the district (Mr. Haggerty) has the <br />authority to make the decision without going to the full Board. <br /> <br />Ms. McKeehan said if the City of Pleasanton were asked to do anything that would <br />require a budget expenditure, that would come to the City Council for review. <br /> <br />Ms. Michelotti wanted the public to be aware of this condition. She had concerns about <br />this happening as the City proceeds with the golf course. <br /> <br />PUD-99-07-2M, TTK Partnership <br />Application for a minor modification to an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD-9- <br />07) to modify Condition No., 3 so that the PUD would be conditioned on the new <br />annexation application submitted by the City of Pleasanton to the Alameda County Local <br />Agency Formation Commission on 6/7/02. (IR 02:035) <br />No action was required or taken on this item. <br /> <br />Approved participation in amicus curiae brief concerning a takings challenge to a price <br />control law (Chevron, USA v. Cayetano). (SR 02:201) <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 5 08/20/02 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.