My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN112878
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1970-1979
>
1978
>
CCMIN112878
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:48:27 AM
Creation date
11/13/1999 12:41:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
341 <br /> <br />78-26 Rickenbach - Romey Apts. <br /> Mr. Jack Bras, representing this developer, stated he felt this project should <br />receive additional points because of improvement to substandard construction and <br />proximity to the downtown area. He stated there were two existing sewer hookups <br />at this location therefore there was need for only 5 additional permits instead of <br />the seven as listed. <br /> <br /> After discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Brandes, and seconded by <br />Councilmember Kephart, that Project 78-26 Rickenbach - Romey Apartments, be con- <br />sidered as five sewer hookups under RAP rather than seven. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmen Brandes, Butler, Kephart, Wood, and Mayor Mercer <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br /> <br /> It was moved by Councilmember Brandes, and seconded by Councilmember Butler, <br />that Project 78-26 Rickenbach - Romey Apts., be awarded +1 point for Other Environ- <br />mental Considerations, instead of the -1 point as recommended by staff. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmen Brandes, Butler, Kephart, Wood, and Mayor Mercer <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br /> <br />78-27 Oliver Rousseau Ind. Corp. - Tr. 3297 <br /> Mr. George Oakes asked the Council to take into consideration the previous <br />improvements made in the area of this project. He stated he felt that additional <br />points should be allowed for Design and Traffic Circulation and cited the reasons <br />for this position. He added this development needs 74 units to be finished and <br />should be a completed entity for total improvement to the area. He further stated <br />that Brockton Drive had not been accepted by the City and was not a City street. <br /> <br /> After discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Brandes that Project 78-27 <br />Oliver Rousseau Ind. Corp. - Tr. 3297 be awarded 9 points for Design, 9 points <br />for Traffic Circulation, 1 point for Other Environmental Considerations, 21 points <br />for Missing Links, and 0 points for Infilling. <br /> <br /> The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mayor Mercer, and seconded by Councilmember Brandes, that <br />Project 78-27 Oliver Rousseau Ind. Corp. - Tr. 3297, be awarded 9 points for <br />Design instead of 7 as recommended by staff; 9 points for Traffic Circulation <br />instead of 8 as recommended by staff; 21 points for Missing Links instead of 0 <br />as recommended by staff; and 0 points for Infilling instead of 15 as recommended <br />by staff. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmen Brandes, Butler, Kephart, Wood, and Mayor Mercer <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br /> <br />78-28 Amador Valley Investors - Tr. 3148 <br /> 'Mr. George Oakes, partner, stated he felt this project should receive addi- <br />tional points for the bike path improvement in the area. Councilmember Brandes <br />asked Mr. Oakes if he would accept fewer than the minimum number under 29 units <br />listed on the application for this project. Mr. Oakes stated he would accept a <br />lower number but it would be difficult to develop as planned. Council discussion <br /> <br /> 4. 11/28/78 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.