My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2010
>
072010
>
01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2010 11:33:34 AM
Creation date
7/14/2010 11:44:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
7/20/2010
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
01
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
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
Councilmember McGovern asked if new development pays more towards the cost of CIP <br /> projects in Zone 7 than the current ratepayer does. Mr. Martin said yes; their connection fee is <br /> used for expansion of the system to make it bigger. <br /> Councilmember Cook Kallio said she is assuming Zone 7 has costs that are passed on to them <br /> from some place else. She questioned who has control over those rates and how does the <br /> process work. Mr. Martin said the Department of Water Resources controls the water coming to <br /> Zone 7, and then there is the delta issue. In Zone 7's defense, they are only a piece of that. <br /> There is an $11 billion bond that does not include infrastructure for a bypass. There are a lot of <br /> costs in California because the water system has not been upgraded in 50 years and population <br /> has risen significantly. <br /> Vice Mayor Thorne questioned if something in the motion should be included having staff work <br /> with the agencies and other boards for cities to try and absorb LAVMA. Mr. Fialho said they <br /> have discussed this at liaison meetings and he cautioned the Council that the item was not <br /> agendized. However, he acknowledged that all Councilmembers do support some form of <br /> consolidation, especially at LAVMA and for the record staff can work with Vice Mayor Thorne <br /> and board members to achieve this objective. <br /> MOTION: It was m/s by Sullivan/Thorne to introduce Ordinance No. 2002 approving sewer <br /> rates and amending Municipal Code Section 15.20.180 to place sewer fees in the Master Fee <br /> Schedule and to adopt Resolution No. 10 -371 approving water rates. Motion passed by the <br /> following vote: <br /> Ayes: Councilmembers Cook Kallio, McGovern, Sullivan, Thorne, Mayor Hosterman <br /> Noes: None <br /> Absent: None <br /> BREAK Mayor Hosterman called for a break at 9:28 p.m. and, thereafter, reconvened the <br /> regular meeting at 9:35 p.m. <br /> 15. Public Hearing: PUD- 87- 19 -03M, Dr. William and Lydia Yee Consider the application, <br /> initial study, and mitigated negative declaration for a major modification to an approved <br /> Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow four custom lots, custom lot design guidelines, <br /> and off-site construction on an approximately 29.8 -acre site located at 4100 Foothill Road. <br /> The subject property is zoned PUD LDR /RDR /OS (Planned Unit Development Low <br /> Density Residential /Rural Density Residential /Open Space) <br /> Director of Community Development Brian Dolan gave the staff report, a description of the <br /> project site and said the General Plan designation for the site which is a combination of low <br /> density residential and rural residential. The General Plan density mid -point would allow a total <br /> of 13 units on the site and the proposal is for 4 units. The zoning is Planned Unit Development <br /> which also includes designations for low density residential, rural density residential, and open <br /> space. With the 29.8 acre site, it is an average of 7.45 acres per unit. He presented a graphic of <br /> the lot breakdown, building pad areas which range in size. <br /> Regarding a comparison of the 6 lot proposal and the 4 lot proposal, there is approval for a 14 <br /> lot PUD on this site approved in the late 1989, which is still valid; however, its feasibility is <br /> somewhat questionable and the tentative map has expired. More recently, there was a proposal <br /> for a 6 lot PUD. Staff brought this forward to the Planning Commission and recommended <br /> approval. Following the hearing and recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission, <br /> City Council Minutes Page 7 of 16 June1, 2010 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.