CCMIN092005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Iserson said it would be a part of the conditions of modification and it would retain all of the original conditions. Ms. McGovern asked if this could be done with other projects that come before Council? Mr. Iserson said yes. Ms. McGovern asked about the Asphalt Plant. which was not mentioned. She asked if the conditions that could be modified to inform homeowners? Mr. Iserson said it could be included as part of the disclosure it could be. Ms. McGovern also requested removal of the disclosure pertaining to possible installation of the 230 KB line. Mr. Iserson said it would be removed. Ms. McGovern questioned the joint use of the well and the parameter for establishing it when the Chrisman's use shall be curtailed should be issued by the Planning Commission in the review of the tentative map and asked if the Chrisman's would no longer use the well? Mr. Iserson said this is a complicated issue. This issue received a significant amount of discussion at the time the tentative map was processed and approved, which is reflected in the conditions. Ms. McGovern asked for the clarification of this item to be provided to her. Mayor Hosterman declared the public meeting open. Steve Brozosky, a member of the public, answered the question regarding the well on the Chrisman's parcel. The Berlogar's are proceeding with custom lots. He believed the Chrismans are still using the well until their parcel is subdivided, which should not affect them. He was supportive of the Berlogar property as they have been good neighbors. He believed a modification should be made to the shared financing plan as reflected in the memorandum that Council received. He suggested the conditions reflect that the applicant shall pay shares based on the original Berlogar parcel as shown in the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan at the time of recordation of the final map unless a modification to the shared infrastructure financing is approved. He asked Council to direct staff to prepare an amendment to the shared infrastructure-financing plan to make if flexible. He believed the Hillside residential area should be separate and infrastructure fees paid at the time each parcel is presented to the City. Mayor Hosterman closed the meeting to the public. Mr. Sullivan asked for staff's rationale in imposing all of the fees when all of the lots have not been developed? Mr. Iserson stated staff did not envision this type of situation on a typical PUD. Once the PUD was approved, staff believed it would have addressed all of the potential lots on the property and the fees would have been received in order to reimburse the developer who had fronted these costs for the infrastructure. Pleasanton City Council Minutes 25 09/20/05