Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Lindsey felt that approval should be conditioned on <br />the extension of Pico Avenue and would add that as condition no. <br />31 of project approval. Other than that added condition, he is <br />in favor of the project. <br />The Commissioners discussed what was and what was not affordable <br />housing. Commissioner Wilson stated that as Mr. Heaton was not <br />getting free City land and was required to pay all his fees, that <br />a price of $89,500 would be considered affordable to him. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Lindsey, seconded by Commissioner <br />Wilson, that .PUD-81-6 would have no significant adverse environmental <br />impacts, and therefore, recommended approval of the negative declara- <br />tion prepared for this case. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />Ayes: Commissioners Doherty, Jamieson, Lindsey, Wilson and <br />Chairperson Getty <br />Noes: None <br />Resolution No. 2020 was then entered and adopted approving the <br />negative declaration for case PUD-81-6. <br />A motion was then made by Commissioner Lindsey, seconded by <br />Commissioner Wilson, that PUD-81-6 be approved subject to the <br />30 conditions of staff with the addition of condition 31 requir- <br />ing the extension of Pico Avenue. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />Ayes: Commissioners Doherty, Lindsey, Wilson, and Chairperson Getty <br />Noes: Commissioner Jamieson <br />Resolution No. 2021 was entered and adopted recommending approval of <br />Case PUD-81-6. <br />RZ-81-7, Cit of Pleasanton <br />Application of the City o Pleasanton to amend Article 23 (Non- <br />conforming uses), Chapter 2, Title II of the Ordinance Code of <br />the City of Pleasanton as it relates to the elimination of non- <br />conforming uses, structures and signs. <br />Mr. Harris reviewed the staff report and indicated that item 7a <br />addressed proposed changes to the C-S District, which picks out <br />potential nuisance creating uses occuring near residences and <br />offices and requires a distance factor. <br />Commissioner Wilson asked if the Planning Commission did not <br />recommend revision of Article 23, then would they not recommend <br />item 7a? <br />Mr. Harris indicated that they can be opposed to one and not the .- <br />other. <br />Commissioner Jamieson felt the proposed ordinance was a blatant <br />discretion against a commercial business singling out one use. <br />-7- <br />