CCMIN051705 - Laserfiche WebLink

He pointed out that page five of the staff report outlined a deed restriction pertaining to noise, odor, dust, and vibration. He believed the wording should have been a deed disclosure and not a deed restriction as the Conditions of Approval address this matter. He noted that Council had previously discussed this matter pertaining to another development by Delco Homes. Council directed staff to include in the Conditions of Approval a disclosure that reflected that the City is currently working with RMC Lonestar to address the issues of noise, odor, dust, and vibration. He did not want to include a disclosure in the Conditions of Approval for this project that would prevent someone from protesting the Asphalt Batch Plant as it was not foreseen in the Specific Plan nor was it an allowed use. He suggested using the same wording that was used for the previously approved Delco Homes development. Mr. Iserson said the Conditions of Approval for this project could include a disclosure statement to reflect that the City is taking all reasonable steps to relocate the Asphalt Batch Plant. He noted that Mr. Brozosky was correct and the wording on page five of the staff report should have stated a deed disclosure. Ms. McGovern concurred with Mr. Brozosky's comments. Mr. Sullivan noted that the design drawings showed a vineyard. He asked if the vineyard was subject to the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Iserson said the vineyard was relatively small and not a part of the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Sullivan pointed out that for larger vineyards, the Planning Commission requires a condition for a management plan. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Iserson said the project started out as a remodel addition and the applicant's original goal was to keep the vineyard near the existing house. The applicant's realized through the condition of the existing house, the house would have to be demolished. He noted that the flat portion of the lot is towards the front and the vineyard would stay away from the eucalyptus trees that the applicant would want to retain to screen the northerly portion of the building elevation. Mayor Hosterman declared the public hearing open. There being no speakers, the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Mr. Brozosky, seconded by Ms. McGovern, to find that there are no new or changed circumstances which required additional CEQA review of the project; to find that the development plan is consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan as described in the staff report; to introduce Ordinance 1917, an ordinance approving PUD- 43, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, Exhibit B; to amend the wording to the Disclosure Statement as outlined in the Conditions of Approval to reflect the City is taking all reasonable steps to relocate the Asphalt Batch Plant; and to disclose that vehicles will be parking near or on the roadway, near the Trail, next to the property. The roll call vote was taken as follows: AYES: Councilmembers - Brozosky, McGovern, Sullivan, and Mayor Hosterman NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Pleasanton City Council 10 05/17/05 Minutes