City Council Minutes
6/16/2015 3:43:28 PM
6/16/2015 3:43:27 PM
Regular Meeting Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
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 plain text
C. LANDS OF QUARRY HILLS: (continued) : <br /> 41, <br /> The report also noted that the proposed subdivision tentative map was <br /> in the final days of a ninety day extension on the one year tentative <br /> map timeline. The Director of Public Works further noted the option of <br /> continuance as the applicant has submitted a letter dated 6/13/89 <br /> requesting an extension of 90 days on the application. As a possible <br /> timeframe for Town review of the project, Mr. Ekern noted the <br /> following dates: 6/26/89 staff review (geologists reports) ; 7/12/89 <br /> Planning Commission (if geologists concur on their findings) ; and <br /> 8/2/89 City Council . <br /> The City Attorney stated that the Council had two options: 1) deny the <br /> application or 2) concur with the applicant ' s request for a ninety day <br /> continuance. <br /> Siegel brought up two areas of concern: 1) He assumed the Town did not <br /> want to be a part of the litigation between Los Altos and the County <br /> regarding the environmental impact report. He would prefer to know the <br /> outcome of the hearing on this issue (mid-August) before seeing the <br /> map again on the project as it could take months if the court did <br /> require an EIR. 2) The applicant had a hearing scheduled before the <br /> State concerning his water rights. Siegel believed it was very <br /> important to this project to know where the water was going to come <br /> from. In conclusion, Siegel stated that he thought there should be <br /> consensus between the geologists as their report affected the design <br /> of the project. <br /> John Vidovich, applicant, noted that he had submitted a letter <br /> requesting continuance. He further noted that the Council could delay <br /> their decisions until after the hearing on the lawsuit. <br /> Council discussed the applicant ' s request for continuance. It was <br /> noted by Tryon that the letter in part stated: . . . 'This request is <br /> applicable only to lots which are outside Measure B, namely the 19 <br /> lots which are contained in the lower quarry. The balance of the <br /> application is hereby requested to be withdrawn. ' Tryon stated that <br /> she could not support the request as stated as it sepaLated--thn was imprecise' <br /> oat. Johnson commented that the decision before Council was to <br /> deny or continue the project and he believed the details could be <br /> worked out at a later time. Siegel also commented on the General Plan <br /> and zoning text amendments and was advised by the City Attorney that <br /> public hearings could be scheduled on these issues . *(ATMIDED BY COUNCIL 6/21/89', <br /> MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Johnson, seconded by Casey and <br /> passed unanimously by all members present to state Council' s <br /> concurrence with the request from Mr. Vidovich for a ninety day <br /> extension from June 13 , 1989 for consideration of the tentative map <br /> for Lands of Quarry Hills (the entire application) . <br /> Lw <br /> -2- 6/13/89 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.