Laserfiche WebLink
It was moved by Mr. Butler, and seconded by Ms. Mohr, that <br />Ordinance No. 1447 be introduced, to be read by title only and <br />waiving further reading thereof, approving RZ-89-19, the <br />application of the City of Pleasanton (Lemoine) to prezone an <br />approximately 48.4 acre site located on the west side of Foothill <br />Road, opposite Oak Creek Drive to the PUD (Planned Unit <br />Development) - Low/Rural Density Residential District (33 acres), <br />and "A" (Agricultural) District (15 acres) or to any other zoning <br />districts consistent with the General Plan. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Butler, Mohr, Tarver and Mayor <br /> Mercer <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Item 6f <br />RZ-89-8. City of Pleasanton, ADplication to Amend the Municipal <br />Code Reaardina Provisions for Setbacks for Pool E~uiDment and <br />Spas <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 90:14) regarding the <br />matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing open on the <br />application. <br /> <br /> There being no testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the public <br />hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler stated that the Council has seen several variance <br />requests that could have generated this ordinance change. He <br />asked staff if there have been any variances in the past few <br />months that have been denied but would otherwise have not been <br />needed if the ordinance were in effect. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that all requests for variances have been <br />granted. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes expressed concern that by changing the setbacks, <br />the ordinance would potentially allow an infringement upon the <br />neighbors without much protection for them. He stated that it <br />would be difficult to enforce noise attenuation such that in many <br />cases, the Council has required some specific mitigation that <br />protected the neighbors involved. He felt that the neighbors <br />would be better protected without the ordinance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler pointed out that the noise problem would be solved <br />by a specific mitigation measure directly related to the noise <br />issue applied in the ordinance. The Building Department would <br />withhold final approval on the building permit pending field <br />testing of the noise level generation of the pool equipment and <br />would require an enclosure, if necessary, to meet the noise <br />standards. <br /> <br /> -10- <br /> 1-2-90 <br /> <br /> <br />