My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN010792
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN010792
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:03 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 9:58:15 PM
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.
/
32
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
6 <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer stated that it was his understanding that all <br /> people included in that report were notified. He asked again if <br /> everybody had been notified. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift answered that all applicants at risk were notified <br /> by mail or by telephone. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer requested this matter be placed under City <br /> Manager Reports for the January 21, 1992 meeting. <br /> <br /> 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS <br /> <br /> Item 6a <br /> ~p-91-9 (GP-91-~, PUD 91-7), Krabbe-Osic~i Partnershi~ <br /> A~Deal of an action by the Plannina Commission to deny an <br /> app~ication to amend the General Plan Land Use Element deslanation <br /> O~ the 0.92 acre site from General and Limited Industrial to <br /> Business Park or to any other land use desianation deemed in the <br /> public interest. and application for rezonina from General <br /> I~dustrial (I-G-40) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) for <br /> industrial/commercial/office uses or any other zoninu consistent <br /> with the General Plan (SR92:27) <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing open on the <br /> application. <br /> <br /> Jeff Etnire, 6140 Stoneridge Mall Road, expressed his support <br /> of the staff recommendation. He explained that 'the Planning <br /> Commission wanted to continue this item for an indefinite amount of <br /> time to study the NPID issues but the applicant was not in a <br /> position to do so and invited the vote, knowing that =it would be <br /> negative. That is the reason this went to an appeal. This matter <br /> was continued from the Council's November meeting to give them time <br /> to negotiate with the NPID Steering Committee. He stated the <br /> proposed rezoning would not cause any additional burden on the <br /> infrastructure, therefore the applicants should not have to pay any <br /> portion of the fees relating to it. <br /> <br /> He stated that they have reached a resolution with the NPID <br /> Committee agreeing to pay $50,000 to NPID for their fare share of <br /> the infrastructure. He requested that condition .four of the <br /> conditions of approval (Exhibit B to the Ordinance on the PUD <br /> zoning) in the staff report, which states that they would not <br /> generate any increase in traffic, be eliminated. He hoped that the <br /> item could be approved with all three actions listed in the staff <br /> report, or at least actions one and two. <br /> <br /> Tom Terrill, 6685Owens Drive, of the NPID Steering Committee, <br /> applauded the applicant for working hard to reach a compromise on <br /> this matter and had no objections to the appeal <br /> <br /> 117192 <br /> 6 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.