Laserfiche WebLink
Approval stating that the asphalt batch plant is a use that is not consistent with the <br />Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan? <br /> <br /> Michael Roush, City Attorney, said the Specific Plan calls out certain things that <br />were to be identified in disclosures that the City requires. Technically, this piece of <br />property is not within the Specific Plan area. The City has required adjacent property <br />owners, such as the McCurdy property, to have the same disclosures that are included <br />in the Vineyard Avenue Specific Plan. The condition as written, will require the property <br />owner to have the same disclosure requirements, and Council can decide whether it <br />wants to broaden it. For consistency, he recommended that the City continue to require <br />the same disclosures for this properly as it does for the Vineyard Avenue Corridor <br />Specific Plan property owners. <br /> <br /> Instead of a disclosure, Mr. Brozosky suggested that the Conditions of Approval <br />advise that there is a problem in the area that the City is aware of and the City does not <br />approve of it. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush believed the property owner would include a disclosure advising <br />potential lot/home purchasers of odor problems associated with the asphalt batch plant <br />to protect it from future problems. He was trying to maintain some type of consistency <br />between what has been required of other property owners in the Vineyard Corridor area. <br /> <br /> As a way of trying to make sure the City is a good neighbor, Ms. McGovern <br />would like the City to require a disclosure to potential lot/home purchasers advising them <br />of the odor problems that are associated with the asphalt batch plant, and that it is a use <br />the City is hoping will be removed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan asked if Council had the ability to add this same condition to all of <br />the other homes that have been approved to be built in the Vineyard Avenue Corridor <br />Specific Plan? <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said there are development agreements with some of the property <br /> owners. It is a question of whether or not the disclosures need to contain a provision <br /> concerning the issue of odor and illumination, and there is somewhat of a debate <br /> between staff and property owners whether the disclosure is required. This is a different <br /> issue than whether the property owners or property developers will provide its own <br /> disclosure in the interest of protecting themselves from complaints from people who <br /> might purchase the properties. If Council is interested in adding a condition on this <br /> particular development or other developments for which a PUD has not already been <br /> approved, he believed it would be appropriate to add the condition of a disclosure <br /> advising of illumination and odor. <br /> <br /> Mayor Hosterman concurred with Mr. Roush. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky asked if Council could add a condition to a PUD that has already <br /> been approved, or may Council only encourage the developer to provide the disclosure? <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said that the City is precluded from adding any conditions to existing <br /> PUD's that have already been approved, especially those with development <br /> agreements. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 7 01/04/05 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />