Laserfiche WebLink
47 <br /> <br />comply with the provision. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that the ordinance could reflect that. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer requested staff to revise the report as soon as <br />possible and send copies to the developers and the Task Force for <br />their review and comments. He indicated that Council would take <br />action on the matter at the next Council meeting. <br /> <br />Item 6d <br />AP-90-13 (PUD-90-3), James and Susan McDowell, Appeal of the <br />Planninq Commission's Denial for Development Plan Approval for a <br />Nine-Lot, Single-Family Detached Residential Pro~ect on a 3.75 Acre <br />Site Located at 2503 Vineyard Avenue, Approximately 1,000 Feet <br />Easterly of the "S" Curve on Vineyard Avenue <br /> <br />Consider Adoption of a Negative Declaration <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 90:401) regarding the <br />matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing open on the <br />application. <br /> <br /> Mr. Jim McDowell, 409 Neal Street, described the project and <br />requested Council to approve it. He then introduced Mr. Peter <br />MacDonald to address the project's legal issues and Mr. Mike Cooper <br />to talk on the engineering aspects. <br /> <br /> Mr. Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, stated that the project <br />contributes more than its fair share to the public needs in <br />Pleasanton through the widening and realignment of Vineyard Avenue, <br />the improvements in front of the East Bay Regional Park District <br />(EBRPD) property and the replacement of sewer lines five blocks <br />away from the project. He mentioned that he was in favor of the <br />Alternative Condition No. 3, which indicates the basis of the pro <br />rata share for the Vineyard Avenue realignment, and that the <br />McDowells are willing to contribute $10,000 per unit. He added <br />that conventional curb and gutters are acceptable but that asphalt <br />would be more appropriate to maintain the semi-rural character. <br />With respect to Alternative Condition No. 5, he said that Mr. <br />McDowell, Mr. Cooper and he met with EBRPD representatives to <br />discuss the future trail, and an agreement was reached to <br />accommodate a ten-foot trail. He added that EBRPD has indicated <br />that it does not want to own the trail; Mr. McDowell will therefore <br />own the portion of the trail that goes onto his property. He <br />requested that the language of the Condition be broadened to give <br />EBRPD the preference to be accommodated if it will not take the <br />trail in fee simple. <br /> <br /> 10-2-90 <br /> - 19 - <br /> <br /> <br />