My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN033004
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
CCMIN033004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:39 AM
Creation date
4/2/2004 11:19:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/30/2004
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN033004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
Mr. Knowles said that was difficult to answer. The picture of traffic for 2010 is <br />so bad that he did not believe anyone would notice the difference with or without the <br />water park. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala was not interested in approving anything for this project that was not <br />scaled down to eight water slides and the ground level improvements. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico believed Council needed to make comments as it pertained to the <br />current motion. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala said she would not support the current motion because she is not in <br />favor of rezoning the property. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico reminded Council that the motion on the floor was Option 4 as <br />outlined in the staff report with the addition as proposed by Ms. Hosterman that Council <br />deny the appeal and initiate a rezoning so that a future project would be subject to <br />referendum by the voters. By denying the appeal, the appellant would basically have to <br />come back with another plan at some future time. <br /> <br />Ms. Ayala asked if the motion included just denying the project? <br /> <br />Ms. Hosterman said no. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala was aware that Ms. Hosterman's motion was to deny the appeal and <br />initiate a rezoning of the property. She reminded Council that it has other options and it <br />can simply just deny this appeal. <br /> <br /> Ms. Hosterman said that her motion was Option 4, as stated in the staff report, <br />which is to initiate a PUD rezoning so that the project would be subject to referendum by <br />voters, and to deny the conditional use permit and design review applications. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico clarified that the motion denies the application and sets in process a <br />rezoning so that in the event that the appellant wanted to come back with the same project <br />or another project, that project would be subject to referendum. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell said he had a problem with the motion, as Mr. Swift mentioned that <br />the entire park would need to be rezoned. <br /> <br />The roll call vote was taken as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmember Hosterman <br />NOES: Councilmembers Ayala, Brozosky, Campbell, and Mayor Pico <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell liked the idea of having water slides but he did not like the existing <br />plan. If the project was scaled down, he could not visualize what the remainder of the <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 9 03/30/04 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.