My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN010405
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
CCMIN010405
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:40 AM
Creation date
12/22/2004 11:36:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/4/2005
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN010405
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
Mr. Brozosky was concerned because there have been problems in <br />neighborhoods in the past where residents have not been made aware of these types of <br />issues and have registered their complaints with the City. He believed the City had an <br />obligation to disclose the odor issue if the developers were not going to do so. He asked <br />if the City could tie the conditions of approval and disclosure of this PUD development <br />plan to another PUD development plan by the same developer? <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said the City runs into a nexus issue in extending conditions on <br />another piece of property. <br /> <br /> Mayor Hosterman declared the public hearing open. <br /> <br /> R.J. Wilson, representing Mardell LLC, applicant, addressed the disclosure issue. <br />He said the applicant would be willing to go through its disclosure package and revise it <br />to ensure that the odor and illumination issues are disclosed if it can come up with the <br />proper wording that meets the City's approval. The applicant would also be willing to <br />apply this disclosure to its other development projects. <br /> <br /> The public hearing was closed. <br /> <br /> Ms. McGovern liked the design of the house, particularly the green building <br />measures and the landscaping plans. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Brozosky, to approve the <br />application finding that the proposed PUD development plan is consistent with the <br />General Plan and the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan, making the PUD <br />findings as listed in the Planning Commission's staff report, introducing <br />Ordinance 1913, an ordinance approving the application of R.J. Wilson/Delco <br />Builders for PUD development plan approval, as filed under case PUD-40, to be <br />read by title only and waiving further reading thereof, to include the Planning <br />Commission's recommendations, and to require a disclosure disclosing the odor <br />and illumination that is caused by the asphalt batch plant. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan thanked the Planning Commission for doing its usual sterling job of <br />reviewing development applications and getting the best project for the City of <br />Pleasanton. <br /> <br /> At a future date, Ms. McGovern was hopeful that Council could discuss the other <br />20.6 acres, which has been proposed to be developed as a community park. <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers - Brozosky, McGovern, Sullivan, and Mayor <br /> Hoaterman <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 8 01/04/05 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.